Ulf|P  i.  B.  Itll  ICtbrarg 


North  (Carolina  g>tatf  Hmoprattg 

QH361 
081 


-^i*  •■*  -  -^         r-  .    ^       ,  ,  .       ^ 


NX.   STATE   UNIVERSITY     D.H.  HILL  LIBRARY 


S00293667  X 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  DATE 
INDICATED  BELOW  AND  ISSUB^ 
JECT  TO  AN  OVERDUE  FINE  AS 
POSTED  AT  THE  CIRCULATION 


5^  I^OV     8  1989 
OCT  2  4  J990 


OCT  2  4  1992 

DEC  23  1992 
OCT  2  ?  1993 


.994 


OCT  t  e  \mi 

MAR     1  1995 


100M/7-89— 891646 


•OCT    7  1995 

^Pfi  1  3  1996 

MAR  ^  1996 

'^^  a  1996 


-ST 


MAR  U  4  19^? 


>" 


CO 


CT  LQ  IW 


g^  AON 


FROM    THE   GREEKS    TO    DARWIN 


Columbia  WinibtxQiti^  Biological  ^txits. 

EDITED   BY 
HENRY   FAIRFIELD   OSBORN. 

1.  FROM  THE  GREEKS  TO  DARWIN. 

By  Henry  Fairfield  Osborn,  Sc.D.  Princeton. 

2.  AMPHIOXUS  AND  THE  ANCESTRY  OF  THE  VERTEBRATES. 

By  Arthur  Willey,  B.Sc.  Lond.  Univ. 

3.  FISHES,   LIVING  AND   FOSSIL.    An  Introductory  Study. 

By  Bashford  Dean,  Ph.D.  Columbia. 

4.  THE  CELL  IN   DEVELOPMENT  AND   INHERITANCE. 

By  Edmund  B.  Wilson,  Ph.D.  J.  H.U. 


COLUMBIA    UNIVERSITY  BIOLOGICAL   SERIES.     I. 


From  the  Greeks  to  Darwin 


AN  OUTLINE  OF  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF 
THE  EVOLUTION  IDEA 


BY 


HENRY  FAIRFIELD   OSBORN,   Sc.D. 

DA   COSTA   PROFESSOR   OF   ZOOLOGY    IN   COLUMBIA    UNIVERSITY;    CURATOR   IN   THE 
AMERICAN    MUSEUM   OF   NATURAL   HISTORY 


SECOND  EDITION 


THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

LONDON  :  MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Ltd. 
1902 

All  rights  reserved 


Copyright,  1894, 
By  M  ACM  ill  an   AND  CO. 


Set  up  and  electrotyped  July,  1894.     Reprinted  September,  1896; 
December,  1899;   December,  1902. 


NarbJootJ  ^rfss 

J.  S.  Gushing  &  Co.  —  Berwick  &  Smith 
Norwood  Mass.  U.S.A. 


TO 
MY  REVERED  TEACHER  IN  PHILOSOPHY 

EX-PRESIDENT  OF  PRINCETON  COLLEGE 


149518 


PREFACE. 


This  volume  has  grown  out  of  lectures  first  de- 
livered in  Princeton  in  1890,  upon  the  period 
between  Buffon  and  Darwin,  and  completed  in  a 
fuller  course  delivered  in  Columbia  in  1893,  which 
covered  also  the  period  before  Buffon.  When  I 
began  the  study,  my  object  was  to  bring  forward 
the  many  strong  and  true  features  of  pre-Darwinian 
Evolution,  which  are  so  generally  passed  over  or 
misunderstood.  When  all  the  materials  were 
brought  together  from  the  earliest  times,  the  evi- 
dence of  continuity  in  the  development  of  the  idea 
became  more  clear,  and  to  trace  these  lines  of 
development  has  gradually  become  the  central 
motive  of  these  lectures.  More  thorough  research, 
which  may,  perhaps,  be  stimulated  by  these  out- 
lines will,  I  believe,  strengthen  this  evidence. 

I  am  greatly  indebted  to  my  friends  Professor 
George  Macloskie  and  Professor  Alexander  T. 
Ormond  for  assistance  and  critical  advice  in  con- 
nection with  the  revision  of  the  proofs. 

H.  F.  o. 

Columbia  College,  July  nth,  1894. 

vii 


CONTENTS. 


-»o«- 


PAGE 

The  Anticipation  and  Interpretation  of  Nature i 

Preliminary  Survey.  Environment  of  the  Evolution  idea.  Periods 
of  its  development.  Nature  of  the  idea.  The  scientific  method  of 
thought.  The  Advance  of  Philosophy.  Advance  of  Zoology  and 
Botany.     Embryology. 


29 


II.  Among  the  Greeks 

Conditions  of  Greek  thought.  The  Greek  Periods.  lonians  and 
Eleatics ;  Thales,  Anaximander,  Anaximenes,  Xenophanes.  The 
Physicists:  Heraclitus,  Empedocles,  Democritus,  Anaxagoras. 
Aristotle  and  his  followers.  Pliny,  Epicurus,  Lucretius,  The  legacy 
of  the  Greeks  to  later  Evolution. 

III.  The  Theologians  and  Natural  Philosophers 69 

Transition  from  Greek  Philosophy  to  Christian  Theology.  The 
Fathers  and  Schoolmen :  Gregory,  Augustine,  Erigena,  Aquinas. 
Arabic  Science  and  Philosophy:  Avicenna,  Avempace,  Abubacer. 
Bruno  and  Suarez.  The  awakening  of  Science.  Characteristics  of 
Evolution  in  Philosophy.  The  Natural  Philosophers :  Bacon,  Des- 
cartes, Leibnitz,  Kant,  Lessing,  Herder,  Schelling. 

IV.  The  Evolutionists  of  the  Eighteenth  Century 106 

The  two  series  of  Evolutionists.  The  speculative  Evolutionists : 
Duret,  Kircher,  Maupertuis,  Diderot,  Bonnet,  De  Maillet,  Robinet, 
Oken.     The  Naturalists :  Linnaeus,  Buffon,  E.  Darwin. 

V.  From  Lamarck  to  St.  Hilaire 152 

Erasmus  Darwin  and  Lamarck.  Lamarck.  Goethe.  Treviranus. 
Cuvier.  Geoffroy  St.  Hilaire.  Discussion  between  Cuvier  and  St. 
Hilaire.  Bory  de  St.  Vincent.  Isidore  St.  Hilaire.  Decline  of  the 
Evolution  idea. 

VI.   Darwin 209 

The  first  half-century.  Miscellaneous  writers.  The  Embryolo- 
gists:  Meckel,  Baer,  Serres.  The  followers  of  Buffon  :  Herbert, 
Buch,  Haldeman,  Spencer.  The  Progressionists  :  Chambers,  Owen. 
The  Selectionists:  Wells,  Matthew,  St.  Hilaire,  Naudin,  Wallace. 
Darwin.     Darwin  and  Wallace  in  1858.     Retrospect. 

ix 


Wir  konnen  bei  Betrachtung  des  Weltgebaudes  in  seiner  weitesten 
Ausdehnung,  in  seiner  letzten  Teilbarkeit  uns  der  Vorstellung  nicht 
erwehren,  dass  dem  Ganzen  eine  Idee  zum  Grunde  liege,  wornach  Gott 
in  der  Natur,  die  Natur  in  Gott  von  Ewigkeit  zu  Ewigkeit  schafFen  und 
wirken  moge.  Anschauung,  Betrachtung,  Nachdenken  fiihren  uns 
naher  an  jene  Geheimnisse.  Wir  erdreisten  uns  und  wagen  auch 
Ideen ;  wir  bescheiden  uns  und  bilden  Begriffe,  die  analog  jenen 
Uranfangen  sein  mochten.  —  Goethe. 


I. 


THE   ANTICIPATION    AND    INTERPRE- 
TATION   OF   NATURE. 

There  are  and  can  exist  but  two  ways  of  investigating  and  discovering  truth. 
The  one  hurries  on  rapidly  from  the  senses  and  particulars  to  the  most  general 
axioms,  and  from  them,  as  principles  and  their  supposed  indisputable  truth, 
derives  and  discovers  the  intermediate  axioms.  This  is  the  way  now  in  use.  The 
other  constructs  its  axioms  from  the  senses  and  particulars  by  ascending  continu- 
ally and  gradually  till  it  finally  arrives  at  the  most  general  axioms,  which  is  the  true 
but  unattempted  way. 

We  are  wont  to  call  that  human  reasoning  which  we  apply  to  Nature  the 
anticipation  of  Nature  (as  being  rash  and  premature),  and  that  which  is  properly 
deduced  from  thmgs  the  interpretation  of  Nature.  —  BACON,  Novum  Orgamim. 

In  the  growth  of  the  numerous  lesser  ideas 
which  have  conversred  into  the  central  idea  of  the 
history  of  life  by  Evolution,  we  find  ancient  pedi- 
grees for  all  that  we  are  apt  to  consider  modern. 
Evolution  has  reached  its  present  fulness  by  slow 
additions  in  twenty-four  centuries.  When  the 
truths  and  absurdities  of  Greek,  mediaeval,  and 
sixteenth  to  nineteenth  century  speculation  and 
observation  are  brought  together,  it  becomes  clear 
that  they  form  a  continuous  whole,  that  the  influ- 
ences^ pi  early  upon  later  thought  are  greater  than 
has  been  believed,  that  Darwin  owes  more  even  to 
the  Greeks  than  we  have~eveF recognized.  It  is 
true   that   until    1858    speculation   far    outran    fact, 


D.  H.  HILL  UBRARY 
North  Carolina  State  College 


2      ANTIC  IP  A  TION  AND  INTER  PRE  TA  TION  OF  NA  TURE, 

and  that  the  development  of  the  idea  was  at  times 
arrested  and  even  retrogressive ;  yet  the  conviction 
grows  with  inquiry  that  the  Evolution  law  was 
reached  not  by  any  decided  leap,  but  by  the  pro- 
gressive development  of  every  subordinate  idea 
connected  with  it,  until  it  was  recognized  as  a 
whole  by  Lamarck,  and  later  by  Darwin. 

In  order  to  prove  this,  I  endeavour  to  trace 
back  some  of  these  lesser  ideas  to  their  sources, 
and  to  bring  the  comparatively  little  known  early 
evolutionists  into  their  true  relief  as  original  think- 
ers and  contributors,  or  mere  borrowers  and  imi- 
tators. This  is  possible  only  because  such  search 
has  already  been  very  ably  made  among  certain 
authors  and  in  certain  periods  by  other  writers,  to 
whom  I  am  largely  indebted  for  whatever  success 
I  have  attained  in  this  first  attempt  to  cover  the 
whole  period  and  to  establish  the  evidence  of  con- 
tinuity. 

Little  national  bias  has  been  shown  in  the  search 
for  anticipations  of  Darwin  among  his  precursors ; 
as  one  instance,  the  highest  praises  of  Lamarck 
have  been  sounded  in  Germany,  and  of  Goethe  in 
France.  The  greatest  defects  I  find  in  the  histori- 
cal literature  of  this  subject  are  the  lack  of  sense 
of  proportion  as  to  the  original  merits  of  different 
writers,  and  the  non-appreciation  of  the  continuity 
of  evolution  thought.  In  general,  we  need  more 
critical  and  thorough  work  than  has  yet  been  given 
us.     Many  heralded  anticipations  are  not  anticipa- 


INTR  OD  UC  TION.  3 

tions  at  all,  if  we  speak  of  Darwinism  in  the 
restricted  sense  and  not  as  all-embracine.  Others 
are^genuine,  ye^tliey^  consist  of  speculative  ideas 
which Jiad  been  retold  or  rediscovered  several  times 
over,  as  in  the  case  of  the  law  of  Survival  of  the 
Fittest. 

The  estimates  I  have  reached  as  to  several  of 
the  founders  of  the  idea  are  therefore  different 
from  those  advanced  by  others.  By  considering 
together  all  the  historic  stages  of  the  development 
even  in  a  brief  manner,  we  can  trace  the  continuity, 
the  increasing  momentum  of  the  idea,  and  conse- 
quently the  increasing  indebtedness  to  previous 
suggestion.  We  can  see  how  many  of  the  prophe- 
cies were  themselves  foretold.  Most  obvious  is  the 
fact  that  Greek  speculations  and  suggestions  were 
borrowed  and  used  over  and  over  again  as  if  origi- 
nal, continuity  in  the  lesser  ideas  which  cluster 
around  Evolution  being  quite  as  marked  as  in  the 
main  idea.  To  fully  follow  out  all  such  genetic 
threads  would,  however,  require  a  far  more  ex- 
haustive research  than  this  aims  to  be. 

Apart  from  suggestion  we  meet  with  many  re- 
markable coincidences  in  the  lines  of  independent 
and  even  simultaneous  discovery,  notably  those 
between  Erasmus  Darwin  and  Lamarck,  between 
Lamarck  and  Treviranus,  before  we  reach  the 
crowning  and  most  exceptional  case  of  Darwin 
and  Wallace.  At  different  periods  similar  facts 
were  leadinQ^  men  to  similar    conclusions,  and  we 

o 


4      ANTIC  IP  A  TION  AND  INTER  PRE  TA  TION  OF  NA  TURE. 

gather  many  fine  illustrations  of  the  force  of  uncon- 
scious induction.  Means  of  intercommunication 
were  slow,  and  we  should  advance  cautiously  before 
concluding  that  any  of  the  greater  evolutionists 
were  dealing  with  borrowed  ideas. 

Finally,  I  have  attempted  to  estimate  each  author 
from  his  thought  as  a  whole,  before  placing  him 
in  the  scales  with  his  predecessors,  contemporaries, 
and  successors.  When  we  study  single  passages, 
we  are  often  led  widely  afield.  Haeckel,  for  ex- 
ample, appears  to  have  far  overstated  the  relative 
merits  of  Oken,  a  writer  who  shines  forth  brightly 
in  certain  passages,  and  goes  under  a  cloud  in 
others,  his  sum  total  being  obscure  and  weak. 
Krause  has  placed  Erasmus  Darwin  over  Lamarck 
without  sufficient  consideration.  Huxley  has  treated 
Treviranus  and  Lamarck  with  almost  equal  re- 
spect ;  they  are  really  found  to  be  most  unequal 
when  tested  by  their  approach  to  the  modern  con- 
ception of  Evolution.  We  must  inquire  into  the 
sources  or  grounds  of  the  conclusions  advanced  by 
each  writer,  how  far  derived  from  others,  how  far 
from  observation  of  Nature,  and  consider  the  sound- 
ness of  each  as  well  as  his  suggestiveness  and  origi- 
nality, before  we  can  judge  fairly  what  permanent 
links  he  may  have  added  or  welded  into  the  chain 
of  thought. 


INTR  OD  UCTION, 


Outlines  of  the  Whole  Development. 

The  history,  as  a  whole,  before  Darwin,  at  first 
sight  appears  to  have  been  mainly  the  anticipation  y^ 
of  Nature;  but  closer  examination  reveals  much 
genuine  Interpretation  of  Nature.  Before  the  mid- 
dle of  this  century,  In  fact,  natural  science  was  not 
ready  for  Evolution  on  the  Inductive  line.  The 
way  had  to  be  paved  for  it;  one  proof  of  this  is 
found  in  the  failure  of  the  strong  Evolution  move- 
ment in  France  during  the  latter  part  of  the  last, 
and  beginning  of  this  century.  In  the  middle  of 
this  century  came  the  time  and  the  man  who  ranks 
as  the  great  central  thinker.  Under  the  Impetus  of 
Darwin,  the  first  steps  were  to  establish,  as  a  natural 
law,  what  had  ranked  as  an  hypothesis  or  theory, 
and  this  has  been  most  thoroughly  done  In  the  last 
thirty-five  years.  We  are  now  taking  our  uncertain 
steps  in  search  of  the  separate  factors  of  this  law, 
and  cannot  foresee  when  these  will  be  completed. 
'  Before  and  after  Darwin '  will  always  be  the  ante 
et post  urbem  conditam  of  biological  history.  Before. 
_DarwIn,  the  theory;  after  Darwin,  the  factors. 

We  remember  that  there  are  usually  three  stages 
In  connection  with  the  discovery  of  a  law  of  Nature  ; 
first,  that  of  dim  suggestion  in  pure  speculation, 
with  eyes  closed  to  facts;  second,  that  of  clear 
statement  as  a  tentative  or  working  hypothesis  in 
an   explanation   of    certain  facts;    and    finally,    the 


6      ANTICIPA  TIOiV  AND  INTERPRETA  TION  OF  NA  TURE. 


-"        proof  or  demonstration.     Darwin  came  in  for  the 
\       proof,  profiting  richly  by  the  hard  struggles  of  his 
predecessors  over  the  first  two    stages.     Lamarck 
\    has    lately  risen    in    popular  knowledge  as  having 
propounded  Evolution,  but  among  his  contempora- 
ries   and    predecessors    in    France,    Germany,    and 
England,  we  find  Buffon,  Erasmus  Darwin,  Goethe, 
Treviranus,  and  searching  for  their  inspiration,  we 
ire   led  back  to  the    natural    philosophers,   begin- 
ning with  Bacon,  and  ending  with  Herder.    Among 
these  men  we  find  the  second  birth  or  renaissance 
of  the  idea,  and  among_the  Greeks  its  first  birth. 

Evolution,  as  a  natural  explanation  of  the  origin 
of  the  higher  forms  of  life,  succeeded  the  old 
mythology  and  autochthony  in  Greece,  and  devel- 
oped from  the  teachings  of  Thales  and  Anaximan- 
der  into  those  of  Aristotle.  This  great  philosopher 
had  a  general  conception  of  the  origin  of  higher 
species  by  descent  from  lower,  yet  he  could  not 
know  of  any  actual  Evolution  series,  such  as  we 
have  derived  from  Paleontology.  He  also  consid- 
ered certain  of  the  factors  of  Evolution  underlying 
the  general  law,  and  it  is  startling  to  find  him,  over 
two  thousand  years  ago,  clearly  stating,  and  then 
rejecting,  the  theory  of  the  Survival  of  the  Fittest 
as  an  explanation  of  the  evolution  of  adaptive 
structures. 

The  Greek  natural  history  literature,  from  begin- 
ning to  end,  is  a  continuous  source  of  pleasure 
and  surprise.     Amid  wide  differences  of  opinion  as 


INTR  OD  UC  TION.  y 

to  how  far  the  Greeks,  actually  anticipated  later 
discoveries,  the  true  conclusion  is,  that  they  antici- 
pated many  of  our  modern  theories  by  suggestion ; 
thus  they  carried  the  Evolution  idea  well  into  its 
suggestive  stage,  which  was  so  much  ground  gained 
for  those  who  took  it  up  in  Europe.  Greek  specu- 
lations greatly  hastened  the  final  result,  although, 
judged  by  modern  scientific  standards,  they  arose 
mainly  as  a  series  of  happy  conjectures.  We  know 
that  Greek  philosophy  tinctured  early  Christian 
theology ;  it  is  not  so  generally  realized  that  the 
Aristotelian  notion  of  the  development  of  life  led 
to  the  true  interpretation  of  the  Mosaic  account 
of  the  Creation. 

There  was,  in  fact,  a  long  Greek  period  in  the 
history  of  the  Evolution  idea,  extending  among  the 
Fathers  of  the  Church,  and  later,  among  some  of 
the  Schoolmen,  in  their  commentaries  upon  Crea- 
tion which  accord  very  closely  with  the  modern 
thelstic  conceptions  of  Evolution.  If  the  ortho- 
doxy of  Augustine  had  remained  the  teaching  of 
the  Church,  the  final  establishment  of  Evolution 
would  have  come  far  earlier  than  it  did,  certainly 
durine  the  eighteenth  instead  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  and  the  bitter  controversy  over  this  truth 
of  Nature  would  never  have  arisen.  As  late  as 
the  seventeenth  century,  the  Jesuit  Suarez  and 
others  contended  that  the  Book  of  Genesis  con- 
tained a  literal  account  of  the  mode  of  Creation, 
and    thereby    Special    Creation    acquired    a    firm 


8         ANTICIPA  TION  AND  INTERPRE  TA  TION  OF  NA  TURE. 

status  as  a  theory  in  the  contemporary  philosophy. 
Singularly  enough,  Milton's  epics  appeared  shortly 
afterwards,  exerting  an  equally  profound  influence 
upon  English  Protestant  thought,  so  that  Huxley 
has  aptly  termed  Special  Creation,  '  the  Miltonic 
hypothesis.'  Thus  the  opportunity  of  a  free,  un- 
checked development  out  of  natural  science  was  lost. 
During  the  long  Middle  Ages,  the  Evolution 
idea  made  no  advance.  Finally  it  began  to  retro- 
gress, when  Greek  natural  philosophy  shared  in  the 
general  suppression  of  the  rationalistic  movement 
of  thought  of  Arabic  origin.  Later  the  hard  and 
fast  conceptions  and  definitions  of  species,  devel- 
oped in  the  rapid  rise  of  systematic  Botany  and 
Zoology,  were  grafted  upon  the  Mosaic  account  of 
the  Creation,  establishing  a  Special  Creation  theory 
for  the  origin  of  each  species.  Later  still,  when 
it  was  discovered  in  Paleontology  that  species  of 
different  kinds  had  succeeded  each  other  in  time, 
the  '  Special '  theory  was  again  remodelled  to 
cover  a  succession  of  creations  extending:  down 
almost  to  the  present  day.  Thus  an  ecclesiasticaP 
dogma  developed  into  a  pseudo-scientific  theory 
full  of  inconsistencies  but  stoutly  maintained  by 
leading  zoologists  and  botanists.  ^i 

-^  The  history  of  the  central  Evolution  idea  be- 
fore Darwin  therefore  follows  its  rise  and  fall  as 
the  broad  explanation  of  the  history  of  life,  which 
we  must  throw  into  contrast  with  the  steady  rise 
of  the  special  knowledge  of  the  lesser  ideas  which 


INTR  OD  UC  TION.  q 

centre  in  it.  As  a  whole,  it  rose  among  the  Greeks, 
declined  with  the  decay  of  Greek  science,  was  kept 
alive  by  Greek  influence  in  Theology,  and  fell  in 
the  opposition  to  rationalism.  When  it  was  first 
revived  in  France  and  Germany,  it  was  either 
inspired  by  Greek  freedom  of  speculation  and  sug- 
gestiveness,  or  permeated  by  Greek  fallacies. 

In  the  first  revival  the  natural  philosophers 
took  the  lead,  followed,  in  the  second,  by  a  series 
of  rashly  speculative  writers.  Then  the  working 
and  observing  naturalists  took  it  up.  Considerino- 
the  Greek  movement  as  the  first,  this  was  the 
second  genuine  progressive  movement  towards  the 
Evolution  theory;  it  reached  its  height  with  La- 
marck, and  then  declined,  or  rather  failed  to  make 
a  permanent  or  widespread  impression.  In  the 
middle  of  this  century,  all  the  ground  gained  was 
apparently  but  not  really  lost ;  science,  church,  and 
laity  were  almost  at  one  upon  the  Special  Creation 
theory.  The  open  dissenters  were  comparatively 
few  and  very  guarded  in  the  expression  of  their 
opinions.  Young  Darwin  was  among  the  few  who 
kept  before  his  mind  both  theories ;  he  met  and 
successfully  overcame  the  great  tide  of  adverse 
opinion ;  a  conquest  which  Germany  has  recognized 
by  rechristening  Evolution  —  Darwinisrnus.  Since 
1858  more  works  upon  Evolution  have  appeared 
each  year  than  in  all  the  centuries  previous. 

In  this  more  recent  history,  which  I  hope  to  take 
up  in  the  same  spirit  in  another  course,  we  again 


I O      AN  TI  CI  PA  TION  AND  INTER  PRE  TA  TION  OF  NA  TURE. 

trace  the  rise  and  fall  of  certain  ideas ;  even  our 
present  thought  leaders  having  their  remote  paral- 
lels in  the  past.  For  even  amidst  our  present 
wealth  of  facts  the  impassable  boundaries  of  human 
thought  seem  to  confine  us  to  unconscious  revivals 
of  Greek  conceptions.  There  are  many  observers, 
but  few  who  can  strike  out  into  the  absolutely 
virgin  soil  of  novel  suggestion. 

The  special  phases  of  Evolution  development 
may  accordingly  be  marked  off  in  the  following 
manner:  — 

The  Anticipation  of  Nature  :   Greek  Evolution. 

I.  640  B.C.-1600  A.D. 

Greek  Evolution  in  Christian  Theology ;  in  Arabic 

Philosophy. 

The  rise,  decline,  revival,  and  final  decline  of  the 
Greek  Natural  History  and  Greek  conception  of 
Evolution.  Of  this  period  were  Thales,  Anaxi- 
mander,  Anaximenes,  Xenophanes,  Heraclitus, 
Empedocles,  Democritus,  Anaxagoras,  Aristotle,-^ 
Epicurus,  Lucretius,  Gregory,  Augustine,  Bruno, 
Avempace,  Abubacer. 

The   Interpretation  of  Nature  :    Modern  Evo- 
lution. 

II.  1600-1800  A.D. 

Philosophical  Evolution. 

Emancipation  of  Botany  and  Zoology  from  Greek 
traditions. 


INTR  OD  UC  TION. 


II 


The  beginnings  of  Modern  Evolution  as  part  of 
a  natural  order  of  the  universe.  Suggestions  of 
inductive  Evolution,  as  based  upon  the  transfor- 
mation and  filiation  of  species,  by  the  natural  phi- 
losophers, Bacon,  Descartes,  Leibnitz,  Hume,  Kant, 
Lessing,   Herder,  Schelling. 

Revival  of  Greek  EvohUion  ideas  in  specula- 
tive form  by  such  speculative  philosophical  writers 
and  naturalists  as  Maupertuis,  Diderot,  De  IMaillet, 
Robinet,  Bonnet,  Oken. 

in.  1730-1850  A.D. 
Modern   Inductive  Evolution,    3^  Period:   Buff  on 

to  St.  Hi  lair e. 

Rapid  extension  of  Zoology,  Botany  and  Paleon- 
tology. Rise  and  decline  of  inductive  Evolution. 
Scattered  observation  and  speculation  upon  the 
filiation  and  transformation  of  species. 

Linn^us,  Buffon,  E.  Darwin,  Lamarck,  Goethe, 
Treviranus,  Geof.  St.  Hilaire,  St.  Vincent,  Is.  St. 
Hilaire.  Miscellaneous  writers :  Grant,  Rafinesque, 
Virey,  Dujardin,  d'Halloy,  Chevreul,  Godron,  Leidy, 
Unger,  Carus,  Lecoq,  Schaafhausen,  Wolff,  Meckel, 
Von  Baer,  Serres,  Herbert,  Buch,  Wells,  Matthew^ 
Naudin,  Haldeman,  Spencer,  Chambers,  Owen. 

IV.   1858-1893  A.D. 

Modern  Inductive  Evolution,  /[t/i  Period :  Da7"win, 

Wallace. 

Evolution  established  inductively  and  deductively 
as  a  law  of  Nature.     The  factor  of  Natural  Sclcc- 


1 2      ANTICIPA TION  AND  INTERPRE TA  TION  OF  NA  JURE. 

tion  established.     Observation  and  speculation  upon 
other  factors  of  Evolution. 

No  sharp  lines  actually  separated  these  periods ; 
each  passed  gradually  into  the  next.  The  decline 
of  Greek,  and  especially  of  Aristotelian  influence 
in  natural  science,  was  extremely  gradual,  and  was 
overlapped  by  the  awakening  of  the  spirit  of  origi- 
nal research  upon  animals  and  plants,  and  of  the 
science  of  medicine.  Similarly,  what  we  may  call 
the  Philosophers'  period  ran  insensibly  into  the 
Buffon  or  third  period,  for  the  later  naturalists 
began  their  work  contemporaneously  with  the  later 
philosophers.  Perhaps  the  sharpest  transition  was 
at  the  close  of  the  third  period,  in  which  a  distinct 
anti-Evolution  school  had  sprung  up  and  succeeded 
in  firmly  entrenching  itself,  so  that  Darwin  and 
Wallace  began  the  present  era  with  some  ab- 
ruptness. 

Environment  of  the  Evolution  Idea. 

As  we  have  seen  in  this  resume,  the  idea  had 
a  lone  strusrele  for  growth  and  existence  in  the 
twenty-four  centuries  between  Thales  and  Darwin, 
yet  it  never  w^holly  suspended  animation.  I  may 
emphasize  again  the  standpoint  of  these  lectures, 
that  the  final  conception  of  Evolution  is  to  be 
regarded  as  a  cluster  of  many  subsidiary  ideas, 
which  slowly  evolved  in  the  environment  of  advan- 
cing human  knowledge.     Like  an  animal  or  plant, 


ENVIRONMENT.  1 3 

made  up  of  many  different  parts  which  have  been 
added  one  by  one  along  the  ages,  we  can  take  up 
this  history  as  we  should  a  bit  of  biological  research  ; 
consider  the  idea  as  livinor  and  still  m-owino-  and 
seek  the  first  stages  of  each  of  its  parts.  These 
w^e  will  find  in  the  earliest  o^uesses  as  to  the  orio-in 
of  life  from  matter;  in  conjectures  about  develop- 
ment and  reproduction  ;  in  early  observed  evidences 
of  heredity,  degeneration,  variation,  and  of  the 
affiliation  between  organisms ;  in  the  first  apprecia- 
tion of  environment  and  its  influences,  of  internal 
changes  in  the  body  and  their  influences,  of  adapta- 
tion or  fitness,  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest  orean- 
isms,  and  finally  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest  organs. 
As  each  part  of  every  organism  has  begun  as  a 
rudiment  and  followed  its  own  independent  history, 
so  each  of  these  subsidiary  ideas  rose  in  a  crude 
form,  and  became  increasingly  clear  and  definite. 

We  have  then  three  objects  in  view :  first,  to 
follow  the  broad  idea  of  Evolution  as  a  natural 
law;  second,  to  trace  back  the  birth  and  develop- 
ment of  each  of  its  parts ;  third,  to  keep  constantly 
in  mind  the  chano^ino^  environment  of  knowleds^e 
and  prejudice.  The  uncongenial  influences  were  by 
no  means  confined  to  those  mentioned  above ;  tlie 
introduction  and  long  persistence  of  scientific  falla- 
cies, such  as  Abiogenesis,  the  uncertain  methods  of 
scientific  thinking,  the  limited  knowledge  of  Nature, 
and  especially  of  animal  and  plant  life,  are  all  to  be 
considered.     As  these  were  cleared  away,  the  envi- 


~\ 


1 4       ANTIC  IP  A  TION  AND  INTER  PRE  TA  TION  OF  NA  TURE. 

ronment  became  more  congenial,  and  the  idea  began 
its  unchecked  development. 

If  we  look  at  the  idea  in  itself,  we  first  dis- 
tinguish between  the  law  of  Evolution  as  an  expla- 
nation of  the  origin  of  all  forms  of  life;  second,  the 
evidences  for  such  a  law,  and  third,  the  theories 
and  conjectures  as  to  the  natural  causes  or  factors 
underlying  this  law  or  constituting  it.  The  full 
conception  came  very  late.  _Apparently  Lamarck 
was  the  first  to  grasp  Evolution  in  its  modern  , 
significance,  and  to  see  the  analogy  between  the  J 
past  history  of  life  and  a  great  widely  branching 
tree,  having  its  roots  in  the  simplest  organisms, 
its  shorter  branches  in  the  lower,  and  its  longer 
branches  in  the  higher  forms  of  life.  According 
to  this  now  familiar  analogy,  the  living  forms  of 
to-day  are  the  terminal  twigs  of  great  branches 
which  represent  the  lines  of  extinct  ancestors. 
These  branches  united  near  the  trunk  with  others, 
whilst  still  other  branches,  with  their  terminal 
branchlets,  have  entirely  died  out  in  past  time. 
Or,  to  trace  the  history  upwards  instead  of  down- 
wards and  begin  at  the  roots,  the  lower  branches 
of  the  tree  are  comparatively  few,  and  represent  the 
great  classes  of  animals  which  divided  and  sub- 
divided into  orders,  sub-orders,  families,  genera, 
species,  and  so  on. 

Prior  to  Lamarck  this  branching  nature  of  de- 
scent was  only  very  crudely  perceived.  This  was 
because  Aristotle's  general  view  that  the  existing 


ENVIR  ONMENT, 


15 


forms  of  life  constituted  a  scale  of  ascent  from  the 
polyps  to  man,  had  been  revived  in  different  as- 
pects, such  as  the  '  perfection  chain  '  of  Leibnitz, 
or  the  famous  'echelle'  of  Bonnet.  It  is  evident 
that  the  modern  conception  grew  out  of  the  dis- 
covery of  the  extinction  of  earlier  and  intermediate 
forms  of  life  such  as  came  from  Paleontology,  and 
that  it  is  essentially  different  from  the  ancient 
'  ladder '  or  '  chain  '  conception,  which  regarded  the 
existing  terminal  twigs  of  the  tree  as  directly  affili- 
ated to  each  other,  rather  than  through  the  extinct 
earlier  branches.  Pre-Lamarckian  Evolution  was 
mainly  a  conception  of  the  gradual  rise  of  higher 
forms  of  life  by  descent  and  modification  from 
lower  forms  still  existing.  This,  in  contrast  with 
the  notions  of  sudden  production  of  life  from  the 
earth  or  by  Special  Creation,  was  based  upon  slow 
development,  and  had  the  distinction  always  of 
being  a  naturalistic  explanation. 

The  variety  of  terms  under  which  Evolution  has 
figured,  to  a  certain  extent  mark  the  chapters  in 
its  history.  In  France,  the  early  terms  '  traiismuta- 
tion '  and  'filiation '  have  partly  given  way  to  the 
more  modern  '  transformisme'  In  England,  Evo- 
lution has  been  known  as  the  '  doctrine  of  deriva- 
tion,' as  the  'development  hypothesis,'  and  as  the 
'descent  theory.'  For  the  first  half  of  this  century, 
Evolution  was  known  mainly  as  the  Lamarckian 
theory,  just  as  later  it  universally  became  the  Dar- 
winian theory ;   while  very  recently   '  Lamarckism ' 


/ 


1 6       ANTICIPA  TION  AND  INTERPRETA  TION  OF  NA  TURE. 

and  '  Darwinism  '  have  each  acquired  special  mean- 
ings, and  the  comprehensive  term  '  Evolution,'  first 
used  by  St.  Hilaire  in  this  sense,  has  come  in  as  the 
permanent  designation  of  the  law.  This  embraces 
more  and  more  as  our  knowledge  advances,  so  we 
speak  even  of  the  first  naturalistic  view^s  of  the 
gradual  succession  of  species  as  Evolution  because 
they  contained  the  idea  in  the  germ. 

The  Scientific  Method  of  Thought. 

The  slow  discovery  of  scientific  modes  of  obser- 
vation and  thought  constituted  a  very  important 
feature  in  the  environment  of  the  Evolution  idea. 
Now  working,  as  a  matter  of  course,  by  the  induc- 
tive-deductive or  observe-and-guess  method,  first 
observing  a  few  facts,  for  a  preliminary  induction 
or  '  working  hypothesis '  to  apply  tentatively  to  cer- 
tain classes  of  facts,  we  hardly  appreciate  that  this 
effective  mental  machinery  is  a  comparatively  recent 
discovery.  When,  again,  some  obstinate  or  newly 
discovered  fact  compels  us  to  abandon  one  'working 
hypothesis'  which  for  a  time  has  not  only  satisfied 
but  served  us,  and  construct  another,  and  finally, 
after  seesawing  between  observation  and  speculation, 
we  experience  the  pleasure  of  extracting  the  truth, 
we  have  meanw^hile  run  up  an  unpayable  debt  to 
the  past. 

The  early  Greeks  were  mainly  deductive  or  a 
priori  in   their  method.     Aristotle,  coming  much 


METHODS    OF   THOUGHT.  1 7 

later,  after  methods  of  thought  had  been  studied, 
understood  and  taught  induction  ahnost  as  clearly 
as  Bacon,  but  he  mainly  practised  deduction.  This 
was  well,  for  in  his  period  and  during  his  lifetime, 
few  steps  in  advance  could  have  been  made  by  the 
safer  method,  while  he  unquestionably  promoted 
many  great  truths  deductively.  Giordano  Bruno 
also  recommended  induction  to  others,  but  found  it 
too  tedious  for  his  own  purposes.  While  Bacon 
upheld  induction  in  his  writings  as  the  true  philo- 
sophical method,  there  is  abundant  evidence  that  it 
was  already  established  as  the  method  of  scientific 
research  by  Harvey,  who  discovered  the  circulation 
of  the  blood.  Mayo  and  others,  quite  independently 
and  even  in  advance  of  Bacon  ;  so  it  is  not  just  that 
he  should  be  credited  with  the  revival  of  induction! 
as  applied  to  science  during  the  seventeenth  century; 
he  was  rather  the  first  to  formulate  and  teach  it. 

During  the  long  Middle  Ages,  men  had  not  ob- 
served Nature ;  they  had  studied  Aristotle's  views 
of  Nature,  and  were  anchored  fast  to  Greek  science 
by  a  traditional  reverence.  "  Bornons  ce  respect  que 
nous  avons  pour  les  anciens''  said  Pascal  in  his 
Pensees.  This  is  also  the  vein  of  one  of  Bacon's 
Aphorisms  :  "  Again,  the  reverence  for  antiquity  and 
the  authority  of  men  who  have  been  esteemed  great 
in  philosophy  and  general  unanimity,  have  retarded 
men  from  advancinor  in  science  and  almost  enchanted 
them."  Bacon  also  drew  a  satirical  picture  of  the 
condition  of  natural  science  as  it  was  early  in  the 


1 8       ANTICIPA  TION  AND  INTERPRE  TA  TION  OF  NA  TURE. 

seventeenth  century :  "  If  the  natural  history  extant, 
though  apparently  of  great  bulk  and  variety,  were 
to  be  carefully  weeded  of  its  fables,  antiquities, 
quotations,  frivolous  disputes,  philosophy,  orna- 
ments, it  would  shrink  to  a  slender  bulk." 

During  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries 
valuable  materials  were  slowly  gathering  for  the 
induction  of  Evolution.  In  the  first  revival  of  the 
idea  the  advances  made  were  mainly  deductive,  yet 
each  of  the  great  philosophers  of  this  period  referred 
to  one  or  more  observations,  and  clearly  aimed  to 
establish  a  basis  of  fact  for  the  mutability  of  species. 
This  rational  method  spread  so  rapidly  that  a 
considerable  part  of  the  speculations  of  the  natural- 
ists Buffon  and  Erasmus  Darwin,  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  seventeenth  century,  was  directly  based  upon 
observation  and  was  true  interpretation.  These 
were  by  far  the  most  logical  thinkers  among  the 
large  number  of  eighteenth  century  evolution- 
ists, who  gave  the  imagination  such  free  rein  in 
support  of  the  idea  that  Evolution  and  the  'working 
hypothesis'  together  fell  into  disrepute.  A  school 
that  was  professedly  purely  observational  and  induc- 
tive was  established  by  Linnaeus  and  Cuvier,  and, 
owing  to  the  genius  of  these  naturalists,  gained  such 
ascendency  that  it  was  only  after  a  bitter  struggle 
in  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century,  that  the 
discredited  working  hypothesis  acquired  its  true 
place  as  an  instrument  of  thought.  The  evolu- 
tionists of  the  eighteenth  and  early  part  of  the  nine- 


ADVANCE    OF  NATURAL  PHILOSOPHY.  19 

teenth  century  contended  against  great  odds.  They 
upheld  a  theory  as  to  the  origin  of  life  which  could 
not  be  established  inductively  in  the  existing  state 
of  knowledge,  and  which  even  at  the  time  of  the 
publication  of  the  Origin  of  Species  lacked  veri- 
fication. Although  for  the  most  part  devout  men, 
they  were  declared  arch  enemies  of  sound  religion, 
and  although  right  in  their  contention  for  the  value 
of  the  inductive-deductive  method  of  thought,  they 
were  also  proclaimed  as  the  enemies  of  sound  scien- 
tific thinking. 

The  Advance  of  Natural  Philosophy. 

The  belief  that  the  Bible  contained  a  revelation 
of  scientific  as  well  as  of  spiritual  and  moral  truths 
was  not  supported  by  the  most  prominent  of  the 
early  theologians,  nor  many  centuries  later  by 
Bacon.  It  is  edifying  to  read  the  appeals  of  these 
two  great  Christian  philosophers,  Augustine  and 
Bacon,  for  freedom  of  scientific  thought,  against  the 
error  of  searching  the  Scriptures  for  laws  of  Nature. 

''  It  very  often  happens,"  says  Augustine,  "  that  there  is  some 
question  as  to  the  earth  or  the  sky,  or  the  other  elements  of  this 
world  .  .  .  respecting  which  one  who  is  not  a  Christian  has  knowl- 
edge derived  from  most  certain  reasoning  or  observation"  (that 
is,  a  scientific  man),  "and  it  is  very  disgraceful  and  mischievous 
and  of  all  things  to  be  carefully  avoided,  that  a  Christian  speaking 
of  such  matters  as  being  according  to  the  Christian  Scriptures, 
should  be  heard  by  an  unbeliever  talking  such  nonsense  that  the 
unbeliever  perceiving  him  to  be  as  wide  from  the  mark  as  east 
from  west,  can  hardly  restrain  himself  from  laughing." 


20       ANT  I  CI  PA  TION  AND  INTERPRE  TA  TION  OF  NA  TURE. 

Bacon  {Novum  Organum,  Book  I.,  Sec.  45),  in 
his  Aphorisms,  deplores  the  corruption  of  Philoso- 
phy by  the  mixing  up  with  it  of  superstition  and 
theology,  saying  that  it  is  most  injurious  both  as  a 
whole  and  in  parts,  and  continues :  — 

"  Against  it  we  must  use  the  greatest  caution.  .  .  .  Yet  some 
of  the  moderns  have  indulged  this  folly  with  such  consummate 
inconsiderateness  that  they  have  endeavoured  to  build  a  system  of 
Natural  Philosophy  on  the  First  Chapter  of  Genesis,  the  Book  of 
Job,  and  other  parts  of  Scripture  ;  seeking  thus  the  dead  amongst 
the  living"  (the  interests  of  the  soul).  "And  this  folly  is  the 
more  to  be  prevented  and  restrained,  because  not  only  fantastical 
philosophy  but  heretical  religion  spring  from  the  absurd  mixture 
of  matters  Divine  and  human.  It  is  therefore  most  wise  soberly 
to  render  unto  faith  the  things  that  belong  to  faith."  In  the  Intro- 
duction of  The  G?'eat  Instaiwatioji,  he  says  :  "  For  man,  being 
a  member  and  interpreter  of  Nature,  acts  and  understands  so  far 
as  he  has  observed  of  the  order,  the  works,  and  the  mind  of 
Nature,  and  can  proceed  no  further,  for  no  power  is  able  to  loose 
or  break  the  chain  of  causes,  nor  is  Nature  to  be  conquered  but 
by  submission." 

A  hard  preliminary  battle  had  to  be  fought  by 
the  philosophers  for  natural  causation  as  against 
supernatural  interference  in  the  governing  of  the 
living  world.  Here  lies  the  main  debt  of  natural 
science  to  Philosophy ;  and  to  omit  mention  of  the 
great  names  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  cen- 
turies would  leave  a  serious  gap  in  these  outlines. 
The  natural  philosophers  of  this  time  were  more 
scientific  than  the  professed  scientists.  They 
reached   below  metaphysics    into    questions   which 


ADVANCE    OF  NATURAL  PHILOSOPHY.  21 

to-day  are  left  more  exclusively  to  science.  The 
order  of  the  Universe  and  the  laws  of  Nature  formed 
a  large  part  of  speculation  from  the  times  of  Bacon 
to  Schelling;  in  fact,  now  and  again  this  speculation 
sprang  directly  from  observation  of  Nature,  and  it 
is  a  most  striking  fact  that  every  great  philosopher 
touched  upon  the  Evolution  idea.  Bruno  was  a 
radical  evolutionist,  although  his  notions  were  more 
Oriental  than  European.  Bacon  foresaw  the  close 
bearings  of  Variation  and  of  experimental  Evolution 
upon  species  transformation.  Descartes  cautiously 
advocated  the  Evolution  idea.  Leibnitz  may  even 
be  considered  the  head  of  a  school  of  evolutionists. 
Kant  in  his  earlier  wTitings  held  advanced  views. 
Thus  the  naturalists,  whenever  they  passed  from 
direct  observation  to  speculation  upon  the  causes  of 
things,  drew  their  suggestions  and  inspiration  largely 
from  these  philosophers. 

This  need  not  lead  us  into  the  history  of  the 
discussion  of  primary  causes,  nor  of  the  mechanical 
and  monistic  versus  the  dualistic  view  of  Nature. 
The  evolution  of  life  as  an  organic  law,  more  com- 
plex but  comparable  to  any  inorganic  law,  such  as 
gravitation,  is  one  phase  of  natural  causation.  For 
whatever  principle  regulates  the  rapid  fall  of  a 
wounded  bird  to  the  earth,  is  the  same  in  kind,  so 
far  as  our  philosophy  of  Nature  is  concerned,  as 
that  which,  during  millions  of  years,  has  slowly 
evolved  the  bird  from  the  earth.  Some  of  the 
Greeks   early  saw  this  truth;  yet  in  the  progress 


22      ANT  I  CI  PA  TION  AND  INTERPRETA  TION  OF  NA  TURE. 

of  later  thought  in  Europe,  the  Hving  world  was 
the  last  to  come  under  this  principle  of  natural 
causation.  The  battle  for  it  had  to  be  first  fought 
out  in  Cosmogony,  then  in  Geology.  So  keen  a 
philosopher  as  Kant  believed  that  he  saw  two  prin- 
ciples in  Nature ;  one  of  natural  causes  reigning 
in  lifeless  matter,  one  of  teleological  causes  reign- 
inof  in  livinor  matter.  This  was  because  he  could 
not  conceive  of  any  natural  principle  which  could 
explain  the  beautiful  adaptations  and  designs  of 
Nature.  From  Geology  the  spread  of  the  truth  of 
natural  causation  reached  the  origin  of  the  lower 
forms  of  life,  and  finally  the  origin  of  man.  It  is 
therefore  a  striking  case  of  parallelism  that  the 
advance  of  our  knowledge  of  development  has 
repeated  the  actual  cosmic  order  of  development. 
Man  first  perceived  Evolution  in  objects  most 
remote,  gradually  in  objects  nearer  to  him,  finally 
in  himself. 

Advance  of  Zoology  and  Botany. 

The  general  state  of  knowledge  of  the  different 
forms  of  life,  next  to  the  suggestiveness  of  Philoso- 
phy, was  the  most  important  factor  in  the  environ- 
ment of  the  Evolution  idea,  as  food  to  the  organism. 
The  comparatively  elementary  knowledge  of  Aris- 
totle rendered  his  speculations  upon  Evolution,  at 
most,  happy  guesses  at  the  truth.  Embryology, 
Paleontology,  Comparative  Anatomy,  and  Distribu- 
tion, the  four  pillars  of  modern  Evolution,  arose  in 


ADVANCE    OF  ZOOLOGY, 


23 


the  eighteenth  century,  but  were  not  built  into 
their  scientific  inductive  form  until  the  .nineteenth 
century. 

Yet  the  Greek  traditions  in  natural  history  per- 
sisted as  the  environment  of  the  Evolution  idea  as 
late  as  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and,  as 
we  shall  see,  the  idea  itself  was  framed  solely  upon 
Greek  speculation.  Most  prominent  among  these 
Greek  guesses  at  the  truth  was  the  doctrine  of 
Abiogenesis,  or  geiieratio  cEquivoca  —  the-  spontane- 
ous origin  of  life  from  lifeless  matter.  This  fallacy 
exerted  a  most  potent  influence  in  shaping  the 
crude  theories  of  Evolution  which  were  advanced 
during  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries ; 
the  absurdity  of  these  theories  reacting  unfavourably 
upon  the  true  Evolution  idea  by  throwing  it  into 
discredit. 

The  accumulation  of  the  natural  evidences  of 
Evolution  was  the  work  of  centuries.  Besides  the 
advances  in  Astronomy,  Geology,  and  Physical 
Geography,  there  was  the  slow  upbuilding  of  the 
great  branches  of  Biology.  First,  correct  ideas  of 
structure  or  Comparative  Morphology  of  animals 
and  plants,  and  connected  with  this  the  structure 
of  extinct  forms  preserved  as  fossils ;  with  this 
knowledge  came  the  appreciation  of  the  meaning 
of  variations  and  of  gradual  development  in  struct- 
ure, and  the  meaning  of  vestigial  or  degenerate 
structures.  Then  came  the  knowledge  of  function 
and  the  physiology,  first  of  man,  then  of  the  lower 


24      ANTICIPA  TION  AND  INTERPRE  TA  TION  OF  NA  TURK. 

animals ;  then  the  true  ideas  of  individual  develop- 
ment from  the  ^^^,  or  Embryology,  connected  with 
which  many  fallacies  were  current.  Finally,  Natu- 
ral Environment  began  to  be  studied,  or  the  rela- 
tion of  animals  and  plants  to  each  other  and  to 
the  surface  of  the  globe,  in  connection  with  Dis- 
tribution. In  short,  Evolution  needed  materials  for 
induction.  Unwilling  Nature  had  to  slowly  yield 
up  her  secrets,  and  Evolution  could  not  be  con- 
ceived in  its  phyletic  sense  until  all  the  knowledge 
embraced  in  Phylogeny  had  been  more  or  less 
fully  attained. 

Let  us  first  look  at  Structure.  Anatomy  had 
its  infancy  among  the  Greeks,  and  dissection  was 
rudely  practised.  Aristotle  was  descended  from  a 
long  race  of  physicians,  yet  his  treatise  on  the 
structure  of  man  is  believed  to  show  that  he  did 
not  practise  dissection.  Scientific  anatomy  dates 
back  to  Galen,  while  modern  anatomy  began  with 
the  school  of  the  University  of  Padua,  where  the 
human  body  was  first  fully  dissected.  In  structure 
Aristotle  observed  the  law  of  Analogy,  as,  for  exam- 
ple, in  his  comparison  of  the  functions  of  the  fore 
and  hind  limbs.  But  the  principle  of  Homology, 
or  the  fundamental  likeness  of  type  structure 
between  the  fore  and  hind  limbs,  was  first  pointed 
out  by  Vicq  d'Azyr  in  1805.  Now  Analogy  is  the 
Will-o'-the-wisp  of  Evolution ;  it  is  always  leading 
us  astray,  as  it  did  St.  Hilaire  in  the  third  period, 
for  functionally  similar  forms   and   forms  with  an 


ADVANCE    OF  ZOOLOGY. 


25 


external  resemblance  are  produced  over  and  over 
again  in  Nature,  and  do  not  always  point  to  phy- 
letic  affinity,  while  Homology  is  one  of  our  safest 
guides.  The  relations  of  organs  to  each  other,  or 
the  idea  that  one  structure  is  sacrificed  for  the 
development  of  another,  now  known  as  the  law  of 
Economy  of  Growth,  was  also  perceived  by  Aris- 
totle, but  was  first  clearly  stated  by  Goethe  in  1807, 
and  by  St.  Hilaire  in  18 18.  Aristotle,  following 
Democritus,  was  strongly  impressed  with  the  law 
of  Adaptation,  or  the  w^onderful  fitness  of  certain 
structures  for  certain  ends,  and  Adaptation,  with 
all  its  beautiful  manifestations  in  Nature,  has  always 
been  the  focus  of  the  differences  between  the 
3p€cial  Creationists  and  Evolutionists. 

Degeneration,  or  the  gradual  decline  of  structures 
in  form  and  usefulness,  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  perceived  by  Aristotle,  although  in  his  analy- 
sis of  "  Movement "  he  employs  a  very  similar  idea 
in  connection  with  development.  We  first  meet 
with  Degeneration  as  part  of  an  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  species,  in  the  writings  of  Linnceus  and 
Buffon  in  the  eighteenth  century ;  but  the  idea 
itself  was  much  older,  because  we  find  it  expressed 
in  a  passage  of  criticism  of  Sylvius  upon  Vesa- 
lius.  Vesalius  (15 14-1564)  had  brought  the  charge 
against  Galen  (a.d.  131-200)  that  his  work  could 
not  have  been  founded  upon  the  human  body,  be- 
cause he  had  described  an  intermaxillary  bone. 
This  bone,  Vesalius  observed,  is  found  in  the  lower 


26      ANTICIPA  TION  AND  INTERPRE  TA  TION  OF  NA  TURE. 

animals  but  not  in  man.  Sylvius  (i 6 14-1672)  de- 
fended Galen  warmly,  and  argued  that  the  fact  that 
man  had  no  intermaxillary  bone  at  present  was  no 
proof  that  he  did  not  have  it  in  Galen's  time.  "  It 
is  luxury,"  he  said,  "  it  is  sensuality  which  has 
gradually  deprived  man  of  this  bone."  This  pas- 
sage proves  that  the  idea  of  degeneration  of  struct- 
ure through  disuse,  as  well  as  the  idea  of  the 
inheritance  of  the  effects  of  habit,  or  the  '  transmis- 
sion of  acquired  characters,'  is  a  very  ancient  one. 

Development^  or  increasing  perfection  of  struct- 
ure in  course  of  Evolution,  was  the  central  thought 
of  Aristotle's  natural  philosophy,  but  the  term  it- 
self, as  applied  to  the  gradual  increase  in  organs 
and  single  structures  in  the  evolutionary  sense,  was 
first  clearly  used  by  Lamarck. 

Embryological  development  was  rightly  conceived 
a  priori  by  Aristotle  in  the  form  of  Epigenesis,  for 
he  regarded  the  embryo  as  a  mass  of  particles  con- 
taining the  potential  capacity  of  development  into 
the  form  of  the  adult.  The  term  '  Evolution '  was 
first  introduced  for  the  opposed  embryological 
theory  that  the  embryo  contained  the  complete 
form  in  miniature,  and  that  development  consisted 
merely  in  the  enlargement  of  this  miniature.  This 
doctrine  of  '  emboitement '  of  Bonnet,  defended  by 
Swammerdam,  Haller,  Reaumur,  and  Cuvier,  like 
the  doctrine  of  Abiogenesis,  long  stood  in  the  way 
of  the  progress  of  the  Evolution  idea;  for  if  it 
were  true  that  all  beings  had  been  preformed  from 


ADVANCE    OF  ZOOLOGY. 


27 


the  beginning,  there  could  naturally  be  no  evolu- 
tion of  form,  nor  any  necessity  for  a  theory  of 
Evolution.  Long  before  Aristotle,  the  principle 
of  Synge7iesis,  or  formation  of  the  embryo  by  the 
union  of  elements  from  both  parents,  was  rightly 
understood  by  Empedocles.  The  notion  of  heredi- 
tary tra7ismissio7i  of  characters  was  extremely  an- 
cient, and  was  naturally  founded  upon  the  early 
observed  likeness  of  offspring  to  parents.  Aris- 
totle also  commented  upon  the  principles  of  the 
prepotency  of  the  characteristics  of  one  parent 
over  the  other,  as  well  as  of  Atavism. 

The  growth  of  Embryology  as  an  objective  sci- 
ence came,  of  course,  with  the  invention  of  micro- 
scopic lenses.  Degraff,  in  the  discovery  of  the 
ovum  in  1678,  Leeuwenhoek  (1632-1723)  in  the 
discovery  of  the  spermatozoon,  laid  the  foundations 
of  the  science  which  Meckel,  in  181 3,  and  Von  Baer, 
in  1827,  built  into  one  of  the  keystones  of  Evolu- 
tion. Von  Baer's  law,  that  higher  animals  passed 
through  embryonic  stages  in  which  they  resemble 
the  adult  forms  of  lower  types,  was  also  dimly  per- 
ceived by  Aristotle,  but  not,  of  course,  in  its  vital 
relation  to  Evolution. 

Aristotle  also  distinguished  between  living  and 
lifeless  matter  as  the  organic  and  inorganic,  but  ia 
common  with  all  the  Greeks,  and,  in  fact,  with  all 
zoologists  up  to  comparatively  recent  tinges,  he 
believed  in  Adiogenesis,  or  the  spontaneous  develop- 
ment of    living  from  lifeless  matter.     This  belief 


2S      ANT  I  CI  PA  TION  AND  INTERPRE  TA  TION  OF  NA  PURE. 

was  handed  down  through  all  the  Middle  Ages,  and 
appeared  in  its  crudest  form  as  an  explanation,  not 
only  of  the  origin  of  the  lowest  forms  of  life,  but 
of  the  higher  forms,  even  as  late  as  the  beginning 
of  this  century.  As  a  spurious  naturalistic  expla- 
nation it  was  one  of  the  greatest  impediments  to 
the  growth  of  the  true  Evolution  idea. 

The  law  of  Biogenesis,  or  of  life  from  life,  was 
clearly  stated  in  Harvey's  famous  and  oft-quoted 
dictum,  omne  vivum  ex  ovo,  but  was  not  finally  de- 
monstrated until  quite  late  in  the  present  century. 
The  belief  in  spontaneous  or  direct  origin  from  the 
earth  thus  began  amongst  the  Greeks  as  an  expla- 
nation of  the  origin  of  man  and  of  the  highest 
forms  of  life  ;  it  was  gradually  contracted  to  the 
origin  of  the  lower  and  smaller  forms  of  life,  and 
finally,  to  the  lowest  invisible  forms  of  bacteria, 
until,  as  an  outcome  of  the  discussions  which  are 
still  fresh  in  our  memory,  between  Pouchet  and 
Pasteur  in  France,  and  Bastian  and  Tyndall  in 
England,  the  theory  of  spontaneous  origin  of  any 
form  of  life,  even  the  lowest,  was  completely 
abandoned. 


n. 

AMONG   THE   GREEKS. 

Die  Griinder  der  griechischen  Naturphilosophie  im  siebenten  und  sechsten 
Jahrhundert  voi'  Christus  vvaren  es,  die  zuerst  diesen  wahren  Grundstein  der 
Erkenntniss  legten  und  einen  naturliclien  gemeinsamen  Urgrund  aller  Dinge  zu 
erkennen  suchten.  —  Haeckel. 

Never  has  the  influence  of  Nature  upon  thought 
been  more  evident  than  in  the  philosophy  and  natu- 
ral history  of  the  Greeks.  Whatever  they  may  have 
drawn  from  the  vague,  abstract  notions  of  develop- 
ment and  transformation  of  Asiatic  philosophers, 
they  certainly  recast  into  comparatively  modern 
Evolutionism.  No  landlocked  people  could  have 
put  forth  the  rich  suggestions  of  natural  law 
which  came  from  the  long  line  of  natural  philoso- 
phers from  Thales  to  Aristotle. 

Their  earliest  known  philosophy  was  a  philosophy^ 
of  Nature,  of  the  origin  and  causes  of  the  Universe.^ 
As  Zeller  observes,  they  aimed  directly  at  a  theory 
before  considering  the  severe  conditions  required  for 
the  attainment  of  scientific  knowledge.  How,  then, 
can  we  explain  the  nearness  of  their  easy  guesses 
at  the  secrets  of  Nature  to  the  results  of  modern 
labor  ?  Only  through  this  influence  of  the  '  viilicii' 
of  their  physical  surrounding  upon  their  thought. 
It  is  in  the  environment  of  the  sea  we  find  the 
^  inspiration  of  Greek  biological  prophecy.     Along 

29 


30  AMONG    THE    GREEKS. 

the  shores  and  In  the  waters  of  the  blue  ^gean, 
teeming  with  what  we  now  know  to  be  the  earHest 
and  simplest  forms  of  animals  and  plants,  they 
founded  their  hypotheses  as  to  the  origin  and  suc- 
cession of  life.  Lucretius  the  Roman  was  Greek 
in  spirit,  but  dwelling  inland  he  substituted  a  ter- 
restrial theory.  Even  the  early  Greek  natural  phi- 
losophy sprang  more  or  less  from  observation,  and 
therefore  had  some  concrete  value.  It  was  not 
wholly  imaginative. 

The  spirit  of  the  Greeks  was  vigorous  and  hope- 
ful. Not  pausing  to  test  their  theories  by  research, 
they  did  not  suffer  the  disappointments  and  delays 
which  come  from  our  own  efforts  to  wrest  truths 
from  Nature.  Combined  with  great  freedom  and 
wide  range  of  ideas,  independence  of  thought,  and 
tendencies  to  rapid  generalization,  they  had  genuine 
gifts  of  scientific  deduction,  which  enabled  them  to 
reach  truth,  as  it  were,  by  inspiration.  As  a  case 
in  point,  Aristotle  advanced  a  true  theory  of  the 
nature  of  embryonic  development  by  a  very  easy 
process,  when  contrasted  with  the  slow  steps  which 
led  to  the  establishment  of  the  same  theory  of  Epi- 
genesis  in  the  eighteenth  century. 

Their  development  from  a  childish  to  a  mature 
philosophy  was  a  slow  one,  and  their  thought  upon 
Nature  passed  through  four  phases.  First,  the  pre- 
historic mythological  phase,  which  left  its  imprints 
in  guesses  as  to  the  strange  origin  of  monstrous 
forms  of  life,  by  the  first  natural  philosophers  who 


SPIRIT   OF   THE    GREEKS.  31 

endeavoured    to    replace   mythological   by    natural 
phenomena. 

These  pioneers  contributed  the  spirit  of  the 
second  phase,  seen  in  the  naturalism  of  the  pre- 
Socratic  period,  suggesting  Evolution,  but  neither 
conceiving  of  Evolution  by  slow  stages  of  develop- 
ment nor  seeking  to  explain  Adaptation  or  Design 
in  their  systems  of  natural  causation.  They  could 
not,  in  fact,  speculate  upon  Design,  as  Zeller  very 
acutely  observes  in  reply  to  Lange,  until  the  idea 
of  Design  as  the  result  of  a  controlling  Intelligence 
had  arisen,  and  this  idea  was  first  developed  by 
Anaxagoras,  the  last  of  the  Physicists.  He  was 
followed  by  Socrates,  who  enlarged  the  theistic 
principle,  which  in  the  natural  philosophy  of  Plato 
and  in  the  natural  history  of  Aristotle,  inspired 
the  third  or  teleological  phase  of  thought.  Then 
came  the  fourth  phase,  which  was  a  naturalistic 
reaction  to  the  novel  and  widely  opposed  mechani- 
cal or  materialistic  conceptions  of  the  Universe 
developed  by  the  Epicureans. 


32 


AMONG    THE    GREEKS. 


The  Greek  Periods.     {After  Zeller^ 


GENERAL  CONCEPTION 
OF  NATURE. 

Mythological. 


DIVISIONS   OF  THE  SCHOOLS. 


First  Period. 


Naturalistic. 


Earlier  Materialistic. 


Second  Period. 


Tehological. 


The  Prehistoric  Traditions. 
I.    The  Three  Earliest  Schools. 

The    lonians.      Thales    (624-548), 
Anaximander  (611-547),  Anax- 
imenes      (588-524),      Diogenes 
(440-       ). 
The  Pythagoreans.  (580-430.) 
The    Eleatics.     Xenophanes    (576- 
480),  Parmenides  (544-       ). 
II.  Physicists. 

Herachtus  (535-475),    Empedocles 
(495-435  )>     Democritus     (450- 
),  Anaxagoras,  (500-428). 
Socrates     (470-399),    Plato  ^(427- 

347)- 
Aristotle  (384-322). 

The  Peripatetics,  or  post- Aristotelian 

school,    including    Theophrastus, 

Preaxagoras,  Herophilus,  Erasis- 

tratus. 

Third  Period.    A.    I.    The  Stoics. 

II.   The    Epicureans.      Epicurus    (341- 

270  B.C.). 

III.    The  Sceptics. 

B.     I.  Eclecticism.     Galen  (13 1-20 1  a.d.). 

In  Zeller's  volumes  on  Greek  Philosophy,  and 
in  his  special  discussion  of  Evolution  among  the 
Greeks,  Die  Griechischen  Vo7^g'dnger  Darwin  s, 
we  find  a  full  examination  of  the  speculations  of 
these    ancient   philosophers.     Lange   and  Haeckel 


Later  Materialistic, 


THALES  AND  ANAXIMANDER.  33 

tend  to  read  into  these  speculations  opinions  which 
Zeller,  with  his  more  critical  and  exact  analysis, 
throws  into  their  actual  relative  value. 


The  Ionians  and  Eleatics. 

Thales  and  Anaximander,  the  earliest  Ionians, 
were  students  of  .Astronomy  and  of  the  origin  of 
the  Universe.  So  far  as  we  know,  they  were  the 
first  who  endeavoured  to  substitute  a  natural  expla 
nation  of  things  for  the  old  myths.  Thales  was 
also  the  first  of  the  long  line  of  natural  philosophers) 
who  looked  upon  the  great  expanse  of  mother  ocean 
and  declared  water  to  be  the  matter  from  which  all 
things  arose,  and  out  of  which  they  exist.  This 
idea  of  the  aquatic  or  marine  origin  of  life,  which 
is  now  a  very  widely  accepted  theory,  is  therefore 
an  extremely  ancient  one.  As  has  been  said,  it 
could  only  have  arisen  in  a  country  surrounded 
by  warm  marine  currents  prodigal  with  shore  and 
deep  sea  life. 

Anaximander  (611-547),  the  Milesian,  is  termed 
by  Haeckel  the  prophet  of  Kant  and  Laplace  in 
Cosmogony,  and  of  Lamarck  and  Darwin  in  Biol- 
ogy!  His  theories  were  still  largely  imbued  with 
mythology,  and  the  more  closely  we  examine  them, 
the  less  they  seem  to  resemble  modern  ideas.  If 
we  reduce  this  superlative  prophetic  mantle,  we 
still  find  Anaximander  imbued  with  a  wealth  of 
suggestion,   and  a  literal  prophet   of   some   of  the 


34  AMONG    THE    GREEKS. 

eighteenth  century,  rather  than  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  speculations  upon  Evolution.  He  con-; 
ceived  of  the  earth  as  first  existing  in  a  fluid^ 
state.  From  its  gradual  drying  up  all  living  creat-j 
ures  were  produced,  beginning  with  men.  Thesej 
aquatic  men  first  appeared  in  the  form  of  fishes  inj 
the  water,  and  they  emerged  from  this  element 
only  after  they  had  progressed  so  far  as  to  be  able 
to  further  develop  and  sustain  themselves  upon 
land.  This  is  rather  analogous  to  the  bursting  of 
a  chrysalis,  than  to  progressive  development  from  a 
simpler  to  a  more  advanced  structure  by  a  change 
of  organs,  yet  a  germ  of  the  Evolution  idea  is 
found  here.  ^ 

We  find  that  Anaximander  advanced  some  rea- 
sons for  this  view.  He  pointed  to  man's  long  help- 
lessness after  birth  as  one  of  the  proofs  that  he 
cannot  be  in  his  original  condition.  His  hypothet- 
ical ancestors  of  man  were  supposed  to  be  first 
encased  in  horny  capsules,  floating  and  feeding  in 
water ;  as  soon  as  these  '  fish-men '  were  in  a  con- 
dition to  emerge,  they  came  on  land,  the  capsule 
burst,  and  they  took  their  human  form.  Anaxi- 
mander, naturally,  is  not  staggered  by  the  differ- 
ences of  internal  organization  necessary  for  aquatic 
or  terrestrial  life,  nor  are  we  to  translate  the  word 
fxeTa/Biow  as  '  adaptation '  to  new  coi^itions  of  life, 
but  simply  as  implying  that  the  original  fish-men 
persisted  through  their  metamorphoses  long  enough 
to   reproduce  true  men  on  land.     There  is,  how- 


ANAXIMANDER.  3  c 

ever,  the  dim  notion  here  of  survival  or  persistence 
throughout  decidedly  trying  circumstances,  which 
was  greatly  developed  later  by  Empedocles.  In 
the  fragments  of  Anaximander's  teachings  we  find 
he  does  not  speculate  upon  the  origin  of  other  land 
animals,  or  intimate  that  he  has  any  notion  of  the 
development  of  higher  from  lower  organisms,  ex- 
cept in  the  case  of  man.  As  to  the  origin  of  life 
in  the  beginning,  he  was  the  first  teacher  of  the 
doctrine  of  Abiogenesis,  believing  that  eels  and 
other  aquatic  forms  are  directly  produced  from  life- 
less matter. 

Grotesque  as  these  ideas  of  Anaximander  are, 
they  indicate  a  marked  advance  over  the  autochtho- 
nous myths  of  earlier  times,  according  to  which 
man  grew,  like  a  plant,  directly  out  of  the  earth  ; 
for  we  find  here  an  attempt  to  explain  human 
origin  upon  the  basis  of  natural  analogies.  Unfor- 
tunately, so  little  knowledge  of  Anaximander's  work 
is  left  us,  that  we  can  only  obtain  these  vague 
glimpses  of  his  opinions.  Anaximenes,  his  pupil; 
(588-524),  found  in  air  the  cause  of  all  things.  Air,! 
taking  the  form  of  the  soul,  imparts  life,  motion, 
and  thought  to  animals.  He  introduced  the  idea 
of  primordial  terrestrial  slime,  a  mixture  of  earth 
and  water,  from  which,  under  the  influence  of  the 
sun's  heat,  plants,  animals,  and  human  beings  were 
directly  produced  —  in  the  abiogenetic  fashion. 
Diogenes  of  Apollonia  (440-  ),  a  late  adherent 
of  the  Ionian  school,  also  derived  both  plants  and 


36  AMONG    THE    GREEKS. 

animals  from    this   primordial   earth   slime.       This 
is  the  prototype  of  Oken's    Ur-Schleim.  J 

Xenophanes  (576-480)  was  the  founder  of  the 
Eleatic  school,  and  is  believed  to  have  been  a  pupil 
of  Anaximander.  He  agreed  with  his  master  so 
far  as  to  trace  the  origin  of  man  back  to  the  transi- 
tion period  between  the  fluid  or  water  and  solid  or 
land  stages  of  the  development  of  the  earth,  but  we 
do  not  know  how  far  he  elaborated  his  ideas.  The 
ultimate  origin  of  life  he  traced  to  spontaneous 
generation,  believing  that  the  sun  in  warming  the 
earth  produces  both  animals  and  plants.  He  is 
famous  in  the  annals  of  science  as  being  the  first! 
to  recognize  fossils  as  remains  of  animals  formerly 
alive,  and  to  see  in  them  the  proofs  that  the  seas 
formerly  covered  the  earth,  and  that  water  was  the, 
element  from  which  the  earth  emerged.  Parmen- 
IDES,  his  pupil,  developed  his  cosmogony,  and  also 
derived  men  from  the  primitive  earth  slime  directly 
engendered  by  the  sun's  heat. 

The  Physicists. 

The  Physicists,  Heraclitus,  Empedocles,  Democ-j 
ritus,  and  Anaxagoras,  were  far  bolder  and  more 
fruitful  in  their  suggestions.  Among  them  w^e  find 
that  the  vague  notions  of  metamorphosis  and  the 
notions  of  Abioscenesis  derived  from  the  lonians 
were  developed  into  surprising  anticipations  of  the 
true  Evolution  idea.  *^ 


EMPEDOCLES.  37 

Heraclitus  of  Ephesus  (535-475)  g^^^ve  the 
impetus  to  this  advance.  He  was  so  profoundly 
impressed  with  the  ceaseless  revolutions  in  the 
Universe  that  he  saw  in  movement  the  universal 
law.  Everything  was  perpetually  transposed  into 
new  shapes.  It  must  not  be  supposed  for  a 
moment  that  Heraclitus  had  even  a  remote  notion 
of  the  transformation  process  of  life.  He  was 
rather  a  metaphysician  than  a  natural  philosopher ; 
and  his  principal  contribution  to  the  Evolution  idea 
was  manifestly  in  his  broad  view  of  Nature,  as 
involved  in  perpetual  changes,  yet  always  consti- 
tuting a  uniform  whole.  > 

Empedocles  of  Agrigentum  (495-435)  took  a 
great  stride  beyond  his  predecessors,  and  .may 
justly  be  called  the  father  of  the  Evolution  idea. 
He  was  not  only  a  poet  and  musician,  but  made 
the  first  observations  in  Embryology  which  are 
recorded.  Among  his  first  physical  principles  we 
find  the  four  elements  —  fire,  air,  water,  and  eartji 
—  played  upon  by  two  ultimate  forces,  a  combining 
force,  or  love,  and  a  separating  force,  or  hate.  He 
believed  in  Abiogenesis,  or  spontaneous  generation, 
as  the  explanation  of  the  origin  of  life,  but  that 
Nature  does  not  produce  the  lower  and  higher 
forms  simultaneously  or  without  an  effort.  Plant 
life  came  first,  and  animal  life  developed  only  after 
a  lono;  series  of  trials.  After  the  first  formation  of 
the  earth,  and  before  it  was  surrounded  by  the  sun, 
plants   arose,  and  from   their   budding  forth    came 


38  AMONG    THE    GREEKS. 

animals.  But  this  origin  he  beHeved  to  be  a  very 
gradual  process,  for  even  now  the  living  world  pre- 
sents a  series  of  incomplete  products.  All  organ- 
isms arose  through  the  fortuitous  play  of  the  two 
great  forces  of  Nature  upon  the  four  elements. 
Thus  animals  first  appeared,  not  as  complete  indi- 
viduals, but  as  parts  of  individuals,  —  heads  without 
necks,  arms  without  shoulders,  eyes  without  their 
sockets.  As  a  result  of  the  triumph  of  love  over 
hate,  these  parts  began  to  seek  each  other  and 
unite,  but  purely  fortuitously.  Thus  out  of  this 
confused  play  of  bodies,  all  kinds  of  accidental  and 
extraordinary  beings  arose, — animals  with  the  heads 
of  men,  and  men  with  the  heads  of  animals,  even 
with  double  chests  and  heads  like  those  of  the 
guests  in  the  Feast  of  Aristophanes.  But  these 
unnatural  products  soon  became  extinct,  because 
they  were  not  capable  of  propagation.  Here  it 
would  appear  that  Empedocles  was  mainly  endeav- 
ouring to  give  a  naturalistic  theory  for  the  origin 
of  the  Centaurs,  Chimaeras,  and  other  creations  of 
Greek  mythology.  Thus,  at  least,  Lucretius  inter- 
preted Empedocles  many  centuries  later,  putting 
these  conjectures  into  verse  (Book  V.  860):  — 

y   "  Hence,  doubtless,  Earth  prodigious  forms  at  first 
Gendered,  of  face  and  members  most  grotesque  : 
-^  Monsters  half-man,  half-woman,  not  from  each 

Distant,  yet  neither  total ;  shapes  unsound, 
~  Footless  and  handless,  void  of  mouth  or  eye, 
^  Or  from  misj  unction,  maimed,  of  limb  with  limb  : 


EMPEDOCLES.  jg 

—  To  act  all  impotent,  or  flee  from  harm, 

Or  nurture  ^  take,  their  loathsome  days  t'extend. 

These  sprang  at  first  and  things  alike  uncouth  • 
Yet  vainly  ;  for  abhorrent  Nature  quick 
Checked  their  vile  growths  ;  .  .  . 

Hence,  doubtless,  many  a  tribe  has  sunk  supprest, 
Powerless  its  kind  to  gender.-     For  whate'er 
Feeds  on  the  living  ether,  craft  or  speed, 
Or  courage  stern,  from  age  to  age  preserves 
In  ranks  uninjured  :  .  .  . 

Yet  Centaurs  lived  not ;  nor  could  shapes  like  these 
Live  ever,  from  two  different  natures  reared. 
Discordant  limbs  and  powers  by  powers  reversed." 

Empedocles  imagined  that  after  these  unnatural 
products  became  extinct,  other  forms  arose  which 
were  able  to  support  themselves  and  multiply ;  but 
even  these  were  not  formed  at  once.  First  came 
shapeless  masses  built  of  earth  and  water,  or  earth 
slime,  without  limbs,  organs  of  reproduction,  or 
speech,  thrown  from  fires  beneath  the  earth.  Later 
came  the  separation  of  the  two  sexes  and  the  exist- 
ing mode  of  reproduction.  These  trials  of  Nature 
were  not  a  succession  of  organisms,  improving  as 
time  went  on,  but  a  series  of  direct  births  from 
Nature,  which  were  unfit  to  live,  and  hence  elimi- 
nated, until,  after  ceaseless  trials,  Nature  produced 
the  fit  and  perpetual  tribes. 

Thus,  in  the  ancient  teachings  of  Empedocles, 
we  find   the  germ  of  the   theory  of   the    Siirvival 

1-2  It  is  interesting  to  note  the  remote  parallel  with  the  modern  notion 
of  the  *  struggle  for  existence '  as,  mainly,  success  in  feeding  and  in  leaving 
progeny. 


40  AMONG    THE    GREEKS. 

I 

of  the  Fittest,  or  of  Natural  Selection.  And  the 
absolute  proof  that  Empedocles'  crude  hypothesis  ^ 
embodied  this  world  famous  thought,  is  found  in 
passages  in  Aristotle's  Physics,  in  which  he  refers 
to  Empedocles  as  having  first  shown  the  possibility 
of  the  origin  of  the  fittest  forms  of  life  through 
chance  rather  than  through  Design.  With  Empe- 
docles himself,  however,  it  was  no  more  than  the 
potential  germ  of  suggestion,  which,  in  the  brilliant 
mind  of  Aristotle,  was  stated  precisely  in  its  modern 
form,  as  we  shall  see  later  in  our  study  of  Aristotle. 

Lange  attributes  to  Democritus  a  similar  inter- 
pretation of  Empedocles'  teaching,  namely,  the 
"  attainment  of  adaptations  through  the  infinitely 
repeated  play  of  production  and  annihilation,  in 
which  finally  that  alone  survives  which  bears  the 
guarantee  of  persistence  through  its  relatively 
fortuitous  constitution."  But  Zeller  takes  a  more 
conservative  and  sounder  view  of  the  real  meaning 
of  this  old  philosopher  of  Agrigentum.  He  says 
this  could  not  have  been  advanced  by  Empedocles 
as  an  explanation  of  Design  in  Nature,  because 
this  idea  had  not  yet  been  formulated  in  the 
Greek  mind. 

Empedocles  was  an  evolutionist  only  in  so  far 
as  he  taught  the  gradual  substitution  of  the  less  by 
the  more  perfect  forms  of  life.  He  had  a  dim 
adumbration  of  the  truth.  There  is  no  glimmer- 
ing of  slow  development  through  the  successive 
modification    of    lower    into    higher    forms.       His 


DEMOCRITUS.  ^j 


beings,  which  were  incapable  of  feeding,  reproduc- 
ing, or  defending  themselves,  were  all  produced 
spontaneously,  or  directly  from  the  earth.  He  thus 
simply  modified  the  abiogenetic  hypothesis,  and,  by 
happy  conjecture,  gave  his  theory  a  semblance  of 
modern  Evolution,  with  four  sparks  of  trutli, — 
first,  that  the  development  of  life  was  a  gradual 
process;  second,  that  plants  were  evolved  before 
animals ;  third,  that  imperfect  forms  were  gradually 
replaced  (not  succeeded)  by  perfect  forms;  fourth,  i 
that  the  natural  cause  of  the  production  of  perfect 
forms  was  the  extinction  of  the  imperfect. 

Democritus  (450-  B.C.),  the  founder  of  the 
Atomistic  philosophy,  and  precursor  of  materialism, 
studied  and  compared  the  principal  organs  of  man 
and  the  lower  animals.  Cuvier  has  called  him  the 
first  comparative  anatomist.  He  did  not,  as  Zeller 
points  out,  further  the  Evolution  idea,  because  his 
teaching  was  not  constructive  in  the  way  of  advanc- 
ing explanations  of  natural  phenomena ;  it  was  sim- 
ply destructive  as  regards  Teleology.  He  perceived 
Design  and  admired  the  adaptations  of  Nature,  but 
left  their  origin  unexplained.  As  Zeller  observes, 
Democritus  had  a  gift  for  observing  the  purposeful 
direction  and  the  functions  of  bodily  organs,  and 
was  in  every  way  inclined,  one  would  think,  to 
explain  these  adaptations  upon  the  principles  of  his 
mechanical  philosophy,  for  he  stood  far  from  a  tcle- 
ological  conception  of  Nature,  yet  he  advanced  no 
explanations.      He  denied   that   the   Universe  was 


42  AMONG    THE    GREEKS. 

created  or  ordered  by  reason.  He  adopted  the 
older  views  as  to  the  origin  of  animals  and  plants 
directly  from  the  terrestrial  slime.  His  main  indi- 
rect contribution  to  the  sub-structure  of  Evolution 
was  his  perception  of  the  principle  of  the  adaptation 
of  single  structures  and  organs  to  certain  purposes, 
—  an  important  step  in  advance,  for  Empedocles' 
notion  of  adaptation  extended  only  to  organisms  as 
a  whole. 

Anaxagoras  (500-428  B.C.)  took  a  further  step. 
According  to  Plato  and  Aristotle,  this  philosopher 
was  the  first  to  attribute  adaptations  in  Nature  to 
Intelligent  Design,  and  was  thus  the  founder  of 
Teleology.  He  also  was  the  first  to  trace  the 
origin  of  animals  and  plants  to  pre-existing  germs 
in  the  air  and  ether.  That  the  idea  of  Design  was 
only  developed  in  his  mind  to  a  very  limited  extent 
is  shown  in  his  history  of  the  Universe.  All  things 
existed,  in  some  form,  from  the  beginning.  There 
were  the  germs,  seeds,  or  miniatures  of  plants,  ani- 
mals, and  minerals  intermingled  in  the  mass  of 
matter.  These  germs  had  to  be  separated  from  the 
mass  and  arranged  under  the  direction  of  Mind  or 
Reason.  The  original  chaos  was  heated  ;  it  divided 
into  cold  mist  and  warm  ether.  Water,  earth,  and 
minerals  were  formed  from  the  former.  The  germs 
of  plants  were  floating  in  the  air;  then  they  were 
carried  down  by  the  rains,  and  produced  vegetation. 
The  germs  of  animals,  including  those  of  man,  were 
in  the  ether ;  they  were  fructified  by  the  warm  and 


ARISTOTLE.  ^^ 

moist  terrestrial  slime.  In  recrard  to  Anaxao-oras' 
conception  of  adaptations  as  due  to  intelli^'-ent 
design  in  Nature,  Zeller  says :  — 

*'  The  question  whether  the  purposefulness  of  the  tendencies  of 
Nature  (Natureinrichtung)  could  be  explained  without  a  purpose- 
ful working  natural  force  —  this  question  could  not  be  raised  until 
men  had  observed  adaptation  in  Nature  and  had  begun  to  attribute 
it  to  Intelligent  Design.  No  one,  according  to  Aristode  and 
Plato,  had  taken  this  step  before  Anaxagoras,  But  even  he  ap- 
plied this  newly  discovered  principle  in  exceptional  cases,  —  not 
to  the  origin  of  life,  surely,  for  he  derived  plants  and  animals  from 
the  air  and  ether.  He  did  not,  therefore,  further  the  explanation 
of  the  problem  of  design  in  Nature,  which  Empedocles  is  mis- 
takenly supposed  to  have  raided." 

Aristotle. 

Give  me  no  peeping  scientist,  if  I 
Shall  judge  God's  grandly-ordered  world  aright ; 
But  give,  to  plant  my  Cosmic  survey  high, 
The  wisest  of  wise  Greeks,  the  Stagirite, 

—  John  Stuart  Blackie. 

With  Aristotle  (384-322)  we  enter  a  new  world. 
He  towered  above  his  predecessors,  and  by  the 
force  of  his  own  genius  created  Natural  History. 
In  his  own  words,  lately  quoted  by  Romanes,  we 
learn  that  the  centuries  preceding  him  yielded  him 
nothing  but  vague  speculation  :  — 

"  I  found  no  basis  prepared ;  no  models  to  copy.  .  .  .  Mine 
is  the  first  step,  and  therefore  a  small  one,  though  worked  out  with 
much  thought  and  hard  labor.  It  must  be  looked  at  as  a  first 
step  and  judged  with  indulgence.  You,  my  readers,  or  hearers 
of  my  lectures,  if  you  think  I  have  done  as  much  as  can  fairly  be 


44  AMONG    THE    GREEKS. 

required  for  an  initiatory  start,  as  compared  with  more  advanced 
departments  of  theory,  will  acknowledge  what  I  have  achieved 
and  pardon  what  I  have  left  for  others  to  accomplish." 

In  the  Physics  and  in  the  Natural  History  of 
Animals,  are  contained  Aristotle's  views  of  Nature 
and  his  remarkable  observations  upon  the  plant 
and  animal  kingdoms.  He  was  thoroughly  versed 
in  old  Greek  philosophy,  and  begins  many  of  his 
treatises  with  a  history  of  opinion,  after  the  modern 
German  fashion.  He  frequently  quotes  and  dis- 
cusses the  opinions  of  Empedocles,  Parmenides, 
Democritus,  Heraclitus,  Anaxagoras,  and  others. 
He  undoubtedly  inherited  his  taste  for  science  from 
the  line  of  physicians  upon  his  father's  side,  perhaps 
from  the  Asclepiads,  who  are  said  to  have  practised 
dissection.  He  was  attracted  to  natural  history  by 
his  boyhood  life  upon  the  seashore,  and  the  main 
parts  of  his  ideas  upon  Evolution  were  evidently 
drawn  from  his  own  observations  upon  the  grada- 
tions between  marine  plants  and  the  lower  and 
higher  forms  of  marine  animals.  He  was  the  first 
to  conceive  of  a  genetic  series,  and  his  conception 
of  a  single  chain  of  evolution  from  the  polyps  to 
man  was  never  fully  replaced  until  the  beginning 
of  this  century.  It  appeared  over  and  over  again 
in  different  guises.  In  all  his  philosophy  of  Nature, 
Aristotle  was  guided  partly  by  his  preconceived 
opinions  derived  from  Plato  and  Socrates,  and 
partly  by  convictions  derived  from  his  own  obser- 
vations upon    the  wonderful  order  and    perfection 


ARISTOTLE. 


45 


of  the  Universe.  His  '  perfecting^  principle '  in 
Nature  is  only  one  of  a  score  of  his  legacies  to 
later  speculation  upon  Evolution  causation.  Many 
of  our  later  writers  are  Aristotelians  without  apjxar- 
ently  being  conscious  of  it. 

Let  us  first  look  at  Aristotle's  equipment  as  a 
naturalist.  He  enters  a  plea  for  the  study  and  dis- 
section of  lower  types :  "  Hence  we  ought  not  with 
puerile  fastidiousness  to  neglect  the  contemplation 
of  more  ignoble  animals ;  for  in  all  animals  there 
is  something  to  admire  because  in  all  there  is 
the  natural  and  the  beautiful."  He  distino^uished 
five  hundred  species  of  mammals,  birds,  and  fishes, 
besides  exhibiting  an  extensive  knowledge  of  polyps, 
sponges,  cuttlefish,  and  other  marine  forms  of  life. 
His  four  essays  upon  the  parts,  locomotion,  genera- 
tion, and  vital  principle  of  animals,  show  that  he 
fully  understood  Adaptation  in  its  modern  sense ; 
he  recognized  the  analogies  if  not  the  homologies 
between  different  organs  like  the  limbs ;  he  dis- 
tinguished between  the  homogeneous  tissues  made 
up  of  like  parts  and  the  heterogeneous  organs 
made  up  of  unlike  parts;  he  perceived  the  under- 
lying principle  of  physiological  division  of  labour  in 
the  different  organs  of  the  body ;  he  perceived  the 
unity  of  plan  or  type  in  certain  classes  of  animals, 
and  considered  rudimentary  organs  as  tokens 
whereby  Nature  sustains  this  unity;  he  rightly  con- 
ceived of  life  as  the  function  of  the  organism,  not  as  a 
separate  principle ;  he  anticipated  Harvey's  doctrine 


46  AMONG    THE    GREEKS. 

of  Epigenesis  in  embryonic  development ;  he  fully 
perceived  the  forces  of  hereditary  transmission, 
of  the  prepotency  of  one  parent  or  stock,  and  of 
Atavism  or  Reversion ;  he  also  perceived  the  '  com- 
pensation of  growth  '  principle  as  shown  in  a  pas- 
sage of  his  upon  the  origin  of  horns :  "  Having 
now  explained  the  purpose  of  horns,  it  remains 
to  see  the  necessity  of  matter,  by  which  Nature 
gave  horns  to  animals ;  we  see  that  Nature  taking 
away  matter  from  the  front  teeth  (alluding  to  the 
ruminants)  has  added  it  to  the  horns."  He  saw 
•the  fundamental  difference  between  animals  and 
plants,  and  distinguished  the  organic  or  living 
world  from  the  inorganic  or  lifeless  world. 

In  his  treatise  upon  the  Generation  of  Animals 
(I.  Sec.  35)  we  find  him  discussing  the  Heredity 
theories  of  Hippocrates  and  Heraclitus,  which  were 
similar  to  those  of  Democritus,  and  to  the  later 
Pangenesis  of  Darwin.     He  says  :  — 

"  Children  resemble  their  parents  not  only  in  congenital  char- 
acters, but  in  those  acquired  later  in  life.  For  cases  are  known 
where  parents  have  been  marked  by  scars,  and  children  have 
shown  traces  of  these  scars  at  the  same  points ;  a  case  is  also 
reported  from  Chalcedon  in  which  a  father  had  been  branded  with 
a  letter,  and  the  same  letter  somewhat  blurred  and  not  sharply 
defined  appeared  upon  the  arm  of  his  child." 

Aristotle,  however,  does  not  accept  the  Pan- 
genesis hypothesis  of  Heredity,  nor  does  he  suggest 
the  inheritance  of  normal  functional  modifications. 
In  his  History  of  Animals  he  again  refers  to  the 


ARISTOTLE. 


47 


inheritance  of  mutilations,  remarking  that  such  in- 
heritance, although  observed,  is  decidedly  rare.^ 

We  can  pass  leniently  by  errors  which  are  strewn 
among  such  grand  contributions  to  Biology  and  to 
the  very  foundation-stones  of  the  Evolution  idea. 
Aristotle  showed  practical  ignorance  of  human 
anatomy  and  physiology;  he  failed  to  establish  a 
natural  classification ;  he  also  fostered  the  abio- 
genetic  myth,  that  not  only  smaller  but  larger 
animals,  such  as  frogs,  snakes,  and  eels,  are  pro- 
duced spontaneously  from  the  mud.  Some  of  these 
and  many  other  of  his  mistaken  teachings  were  not 
wholly  outlived  until  the  present  century  ;  yet  we 
may  not  allow  them  to  detract  from  our  general 
admiration  of  his  great  genius.  His  failures  in 
descriptive  science  were  chiefly  in  statements  where 
he  departed  from  his  own  principle  of  verification, 
and  relied  upon  the  scientific  hearsay  of  his  day. 

Aristotle's  method  has  been  fully  discussed  in 
Lewes'  very  interesting  work,  Aristotle ;  a  Chap- 
ter in  the  History  of  Science.  While  Plato  had 
relied  upon  intuitions  as  the  main  ground  of  true 
knowledge,  Aristotle  relied  upon  experiment  and 
induction.  "  We  must  not,"  he  said,  "  accept  a 
general  principle  from  logic  only,  but  must  prove 
its  application  to  each  fact ;  for  it  is  in  facts  that  we 
must  seek  general  principles,  and  these  must  always 
accord  with  facts.     Experience  furnishes  the  partic- 

1  See  Brock,  "  Einige  altere  Autoren  uber  die  Vererbung  erworbcncr 
Eigenschaften."     Biolog,  Centralbl.  VIII.  p.  491- 


L 


48  AMONG    THE    GREEKS. 

ular  facts  from  which  induction  is  the  pathway  to 
general  laws"  {History  of  Animals,  I.  6).  He  held 
that  errors  do  not  arise  because  the  senses  are  false 
media,  but  because  we  put  false  interpretations 
upon  their  testimony. 

Aristotle's  theories  as  to  the  origin  and  succes- 
sion of  life  went  far  beyond  what  he  could  have 
reached  by  the  legitimate  application  of  his  pro- 
fessed method  of  procedure.  Having  now  briefly 
considered  the  materials  of  his  knowledge,  let  us 
carefully  examine  how  he  put  his  facts  together 
into  an  Evolution  system  which  had  the  teachings 
of  Plato  and  Socrates  for  its  primary  philosophical 
basis. 

Aristotle  believed  in  a  complete  gradation  in 
Nature,  a  progressive  development  corresponding 
with  the  progressive  life  of  the  soul.  Nature,  he 
says,  proceeds  constantly  by  the  aid  of  gradual 
transitions  from  the  most  imperfect  to  the  most 
perfect,  while  the  numerous  analogies  which  we 
find  in  the  various  parts  of  the  animal  scale  show 
that  all  is  governed  by  the  same  laws,  —  in  other 
words.  Nature  is  a  unit  as  to  its  causation.  The 
lowest  stage  is  the  inorganic,  and  this  passes  into 
the  organic  by  direct  metamorphosis,  matter  being 
transformed  into  life.  Plants  are  animate  as  com- 
pared with  minerals,  and  inanimate  as  compared 
with  animals ;  they  have  powers  of  nourishment 
and  reproduction,  but  no  feeling  or  sensibility. 
Then  come  the  plant-animals,  or  Zoophytes ;  these 


ARISTOTLE.  ^g 

are  the  marine  creatures,  such  as  sponges  and  sea- 
anemones,  which  leave  the  observer  most  in  doubt, 
for  they  grow  upon  rocks  and  die  if  detached. 
(Polyps  Aristotle  wrongly  thought  were  plants, 
while  sponges  he  rightly  considered  animals.)  The 
third  step  taken  by  Nature  is  the  development  of 
animals  with  sensibility,  —  hence  desire  for  food 
and  other  needs  of  life,  and  hence  locomotion  to 
fulfil  these  desires.  Here  was  a  more  complex  and 
energetic  form  of  the  original  life.  Man  is  the 
highest  point  of  one  long  and  continuous  ascent  ; 
other  animals  have  the  faculty  of  thought;  man 
alone  generalizes  and  forms  abstractions ;  he  is 
physically  superior  in  his  erect  position,  in  his 
purest  and  largest  blood  supply,  largest  brain,  and 
highest  temperature. 

How  was  this  progression  effected  ? 

Here  w^e  come  to  the  second  feature  in  Aris- 
totle's theory,  which  is  more  or  less  metaphys- 
ical,—  it  is  the  idea  of  the  development  of  the 
potentiality  of  perfection  into  actuality,  tlie  creation 
of  form  in  matter.  "  Nature  does  nothing  without 
an  aim."  "  She  is  always  striving  after  the  most 
beautiful  that  is  possible.'  Aristotle  perceived  a 
most  marvellous  adaptation  in  the  arrangement  of 
the  world,  and  felt  compelled  to  assume  Intelligent 
Design  as  the  primary  cause  of  things,  by  the  per- 
fection and  regularity  which  he  observed  in  Na- 
ture. Nothing,  he  held,  which  occurs  regularly 
can  be  the  result  of   accident.      This  perfection  is 


£ 


50  AMONG    THE    GREEKS. 

the  outcome  of  an  all-pervading  movement^  which  we 
should,  in  nineteenth-century  language,  speak  of 
as  an  'internal  perfecting  tendency.'  In  Aristotle's 
conception  of  '  movement,'  as  outlined  in  his  Phys- 
ics, we  find  something  very  analogous  to  our 
modern  biological  conception  of  transformation  in 
development,  for  he  analyzes  '  movement '  as  every 
change,  as  every  realization  of  what  is  possible, 
consisting  in :  {a)  Substantial  movement,  origin 
and  decay,  as  we  should  now  say,  development  and 
degeneration  ;  (b)  Quantitative  movement,  addition 
and  subtraction,  or,  in  modern  terms,  the  gain  and 
loss  of  parts ;  [c)  Qualitative  movement,  or  the 
transition  of  one  material  into  another,  in  meta- 
morphosis and  change  of  function  ;  {d)  Local  move- 
ment, or  change  of  place,  in  the  transposition 
of  parts. 

Thus  Aristotle  thought  out  the  four  essential 
features  of  Evolution  as  a  process ;  but  we  have 
found  no  evidence  that  he  actually  applied  this 
conception  to  the  development  of  organisms  or  of 
organs,  as  we  do  now  in  the  light  of  our  modern 
knowledge  of  the  actual  stages  of  Evolution.  This 
enables  us  to  understand  Aristotle's  view  of  Nature 
as  the  principle  of  motion  and  rest  comprised  in 
his  four  Causes.  Here  again  he  is  more  or  less 
metaphysical.  The  first  is  the  'physical  Material 
cause,'  or  matter  itself ;  the  second  is  the  '  physical 
Formal  cause,'  or  the  forces  of  the  '  perfecting  prin- 
ciple'; the  third  is  the  'abstract  Final  cause,'  the 


ARISTOTLE. 


51 


fitness,  adaptation,  or  purpose,  the  good  of  each  and 
all;  the  fourth,  presiding  over  all,  is  the  'Efficient 
cause,'  the  Prime  Mover,  or  God.,  Aristotle  attrib- 
uted  all  the  imperfections  of  Nature  to  the  stru<'-<de 
between  the  material  and  formal  causes,  —  to  the 
resistance  of  matter  to  form.  There  is  room  for 
difference  of  opinion  as  to  whether  he  considered 
the  Efificient  cause,  or  God,  as  constantly  present 
and  working  in  Nature,  or  as  having  established  a 
preordained  harmony.  Romanes  points  out  that 
Aristotle,  in  his  Metaphysics,  asks  the  question 
whether  the  principle  of  order  and  excellence  is  self- 
existing  from  the  beginning  (i.e.  the  operation  of 
natural  laws),  or  whether,  like  the  discipline  of  an 
army,  it  is  apparently  inherent,  but  really  due  to  a 
general  in  the  background. 

Whether  or  not  Aristotle  viewed  the  Prime  Mover 
as  sustaining  his  laws  or  as  having  preordained  them, 
he  certainly  does  not  believe  in  Special  Creation, 
either  of  adaptations  or  of  organisms,  nor  in  the 
interference  of  the  Prime  Mover  in  Nature  ;  the 
struggle  towards  perfection  is  a  natural  process, 
as  where  he  says  :  "  It  is  due  to  the  resistance  of 
matter  to  form  that  Nature  can  only  rise  by  de- 
grees from  lower  to  higher  types."  There  is,  there- 
fore, no  doubt  that  he  was  not  a  teleologist  in  the 
ordinary  sense;  at  the  very  heart  of  his  theory  of 
Evolution  was  this  'internal  perfecting  tendency,' 
driving  organisms  progressively  forward  into  more 
perfect  types.     He  viewed   man   as   the  flower  of 


52  AMONG    THE    GREEKS. 

Nature,  towards  which  all  had  been  tending,  the 
crowning  end,  purpose,  or  final  cause.  His  theory 
was  then  anthropocentric :  "  plants  are  evidently 
for  the  sake  of  animals  and  animals  for  the  sake 
of  man ;  thus  Nature,  which  does  nothing  in  vain, 
has  done  all  things  for  the  sake  of  man."  ^ 

Aristotle's  view  is  brought  out  clearly  and  emphat- 
ically in  the  most  striking  passage  of  all  his  writings 
where  he  undertakes  to  refute  Empedocles.  This 
is  of  the  greatest  interest  to-day,  because  Aristotle 
clearly  states  and  rejects  a  theory  of  the  origin  or 
adaptive  structures  in  animals  altogether  similar  to 
that  of  Darwin.  Aristotle  perceived  in  Emped- 
ocles' crude  suggestion  of  the  survival  of  adapted 
and  extinction  of  inadapted  beings,  the  gist  of  an 
argument  which  might  be  applied  not  only  to  entire 
organisms  but  to  parts  of  organisms,  to  explain  pur- 
posive structures,  and  which  might  thus  become  a 
dangerous  rival  to  his  own  theory  of  the  origin  of 
purposive  structures  by  the  direct  operation  of  his 
'perfecting  principle.'  In  the  following  passages, 
selected  from  the  early  books  of  his  Physics,  we 
seem  to  gain  a  clear  insight  into  Aristotle's  whole 
chain  of  reasoning,  in  a  manner  which  enables  us 
to  compare  it  with  modern  lines  of  thought.  The 
headings  and  parentheses  are  my  own ;  the  pas- 
sages are  selected  and  adapted  from  Taylor's  trans- 
lation of  the  Physics  and  brought  together  to  give 
a  clear  idea  of  Aristotle's  meaning  in  his  own 
language. 


ARISTOTLE.  -^ 

a.  Nature  is  twofold,  namely.  Form  and  Matter. 

For  if  we  look  to  the  ancient  philosophers,  such 
as  Empedocles  and  Democritus,  it  would  seem  that 
matter  alone  should  be  regarded,  for  they  attended 
in  a  very  small  degree  to  form  .  .  .  but 
it  is  the  province  of  physical  science  to  have  a 
knowledge  of  both.  Further,  it  belongs  to  physical 
science  to  consider  the  purpose  or  end  for  which  a 
thing  subsists.     The  poet  was  led  to  say :  — 

"  An  end  it  has,  for  which  it  was  produced." 

This  is  absurd,  for  not  that  which  is  last  deserves 
the  name  of  end,  but  that  which  is  most  perfect. 

b.  Of  Fortuity  in  Nature, 

Empedocles^  says  that  the  greater  part  of  the 
members  of  animals  were  generated  by  chance ; 
while  there  are  others  who  assign  chance  as  the  cause 
of  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  Intellect  (or  Design)  as 
the  cause  of  all  earthly  bodies.  But  it  is  more 
probable  that  the  heavens  should  have  been  produced 
by  Nature,  Intellect  (Design),  or  something  else  of 
this  kind,  and  that  they  should  exist  through  such 
a  designing  cause  than  that  frail  and  mortal  animals 
were  produced  by  it;  for  order  and  a  firm  and  ccr- 

^  Empedocles  does  not  speak  rightly  when  he  says  that  many  things  arc 
inherent  in  animals  because  it  thus  happened  in  their  generation ;  as  for  instance 
a  spine  composed  of  many  vertebra  not  produced  for  some  purpose,  but  from 
chance  or  accident.     {Paris  of  Animals,  Book  I.) 


54  AMONG    THE    GREEKS. 

tain  constitution  or  being  are  far  more  obvious  in 
celestial  natures  than  in  us ;  but  an  uncertain,  in- 
constant, and  fortuitous  condition  is  rather  the  prop- 
erty of  the  mortal  race.  .  .  .  Chance  and 
fortune  are  sequels  (secondary)  to  both  Intellect  and 
Nature.  Hence  if  chance  were  in  an  eminent  deo^ree 
the  cause  of  the  heavens,  it  would  nevertheless  be 
necessary  that  Intellect  and  Nature  should  be  prior 
causes  of  many  other  things  as  well  as  of  this  Uni- 
verse itself. 

c.   Of  Necessity  {Law)  and  Design  in  Nature. 

We  must  show  first,  why  Nature  is  a  cause  which 
subsists  for  some  purpose,  and  second,  how  necessity 
(Natural  law)  subsists  in  physical  concerns,  for  all 
natural  causes  are  referred  to  this.  But  some  may 
question  what  hinders  Nature  from  operating  for 
some  purpose  rather  than  from  necessity ;  for  exam- 
ple, that  rain  falls  for  the  benefit  of  the  corn  rather 
than  because  that  ascending  vapour  must  be  cooled 
and  cooling  it  must  descend  as  water.  But  Jupiter 
rains  not  that  corn  may  be  increased,  but  from 
necessity.  Similarly,  if  some  one's  corn  is  destroyed 
by  rain,  it  does  not  rain  for  this  purpose,  but  as  an 
accidental  circumstance.  It  does  not  appear  to  be 
from  fortune  or  chance  that  it  frequently  rains  in 
winter,  but  from  necessity  (law). 


ARISTOTLE. 


55 


d.    Adaptive  Structures  7tot  Produced  by  Survivals 

of  the  Fittest. 

What,  then,  hinders  but  that  the  parts  in  Nature 
may  also  thus  arise  (namely,  according  to  law). 
For  instance,  that  the  teeth  should  arise  from 
necessity,  the  front  teeth  sharp  and  adapted  to 
divide  the  food,  the  grinders  broad  and  adapted  to 
breaking  the  food  into  pieces. 

(Another  explanation  may  be  offered.)  Yet,  it 
may  be  said  that  they  were  not  made  for  this  pur- 
pose {i.e,  for  this  adaptation),  but  that  this  (adapta- 
tive)  purposive  arrangement  came  about  by  chance; 
and  the  same  reasoning  is  applied  to  other  parts  of 
the  body  in  which  existence  for  some  purpose  is 
apparent.  And  it  is  argtied  that  where  all  tilings 
happened  as  if  they  were  made  for  some  purpose, 
being  aptly  (adaptively)  ti7iited  by  chance,  these  were 
preserved,  but  such  as  were  not  aptly  (adaptive I)') 
made,  these  were  lost  a7id  still  perish,  according  to 
what  Empedocles  says  concerning  the  bull  species 
with  human  heads.  This,  therefore,  and  similar 
reasoning,  may  lead  some  to  doubt  on  this 
subject. 

It'  is,  ho.wever,  impossible  that  these  (adaptive) 
parts  should  subsist  (arise)  in  this  manner;  for  these 
parts,  and  everything  which  is  produced  in  Nature, 
are  either  always,  or,  for  the  most  part,  thus  (/>. 
adaptively)  produced;  and  this  is  not  the  case 
with    anything  which    is    produced   by  fortune    or 


56  AMONG    THE    GREEKS. 

chance,^  even  as  It  does  not  appear  to  be  fortune  or 
chance  that  it  frequently  rains  in  winter.  ...  If  these 
things  appear  to  be  either  by  chance,  or  to  be  for 
some  purpose,  —  and  we  have  shown  that  they  can- 
not be  by  chance,  —  then  it  follows  that  they  must 
be  for  some  purpose.  There  is,  therefore,  a  pur- 
pose in  things  which  are  produced  by,  and  exist 
from.  Nature. 

e.  A  Sequence  of  Purposive  ProdMctioiis. 

Since,  also,  Nature  is  twofold,  consisting  of  mat- 
ter and  of  form,  the  latter  being  an  end  for  the  sake 
of  which  the  rest  subsists,  form  will  also  be  a  cause 
for  the  sake  of  which  natural  productions  subsist. 
.  .  .  Further  still,  it  is  necessary  (i.e.  according  to 
law)  that  germs  should  have  been  first  produced,  and 
not  immediately  aimnals  ;  and  that  soft  mass  which 
first  subsisted  was  the  germ.  In  plants,  also,  there 
is  purpose,  but  it  is  less  distinct ;  and  this  shows 
that  plants  were  produced  in  the  same  manner  as 
animals,  not  by  chance,  as  by  the  union  of  olives 
upon  grape  vines.  Similarly,  it  may  be  argued, 
that  there  should  be  an  accidental  generation  (or 
production)  of  the  germs  of  things,  but  he  who 
asserts  this  subverts  Nature  herself,  for  N?iture 
produces  those  things  which,  being  continually 
moved  by  a  certaiii  principle  contained  in  them.- 
selves,  arrive  at  a  certain  end. 

1  Compare  Darwin :  "  I  have  spoken  of  variations  sometimes  as  if  they 
were  due  to  chance.  This  is  a  wholly  incorrect  expression;  it  merely  serves 
to  acknowledge  plainly  our  ignorance  of  the  cause  of  each  particular  variation." 


POST-ARISrOTELIANS.  57 

These  passages  seem  to  contain  absolute  evi- 
dence that  Aristotle  had  substantially  the  modern 
conception  of  the  Evolution  of  life,  from  a  i)rimor- 
dial,  soft  mass  of  living  matter  to  the  most  perfect 
forms,  and  that  even  in  these  he  believed  Evolu- 
tion was  incomplete  for  they  were  progressing  to 
higher  forms.  His  argument  of  the  analogy  be- 
tween the  operation  of  natural  law,  rather  than  of 
chance,  in  the  lifeless  and  in  the  livinor  world,  is  a 
perfectly  logical  one,  and  his  consequent  rejection 
of  the  hypothesis  of  the  Survival  of  the  Fittest,  a 
sound  induction  from  his  own  limited  knowledge 
of  Nature.  It  seems  perfectly  clear  th^t  he  placed 
all  under  secondary  natural  laws.  If  he  had  ac- 
cepted Empedocles'  hypothesis,  he  would  have 
been  the  literal  prophet  of  Darwinism.  J 

The  Post-Aristotelians. 

Thus,  in  this  great  natural  philosopher,  we  reach 
the  highest  level  attained  by  the  Greeks,  and  we 
now  pass  to  a  rapid  decline  in  Greek  productive- 
ness until  its  final  extinction.  We  notice  a  marked 
chasm  between  his  theistic,  or  dualistic,  teaching 
and  the  sceptical,  or  rather  agnostic,  and,  to  a  cer- 
tain extent,  monistic,  teaching  of  Epicurus.  This 
gap  widened.  The  materialistic  and  agnostic  ten- 
dency of  Empedocles,  Democritus,  and  Epicurus 
was  revived  by  Lucretius,  and  culminated  in  him 
for  the  time.     The  theistic   tendency  of  Aristotle 


58  AMONG    THE    GREEKS. 

led  to  his  adoption  by,  and  great  influence  with, 
the  philosophers  of  the  early  Christian  Church. 
In  general,  the  movement  of  free  physical  inquiry 
among  the  Greeks  was  checked  by  the  conquest 
of  Alexander  and  the  loss  of  national  independ- 
ence. The  interest  in  investigation  into  Nature, 
and  speculation  upon  the  causes  of  things,  sub- 
sided. Ethics  rose  among  the  Stoics.  The  Epi- 
cureans developed  a  mechanical  and  anti-teleologi- 
cal  conception  of  the  Universe,  but  they  did  not 
advance  the  inquiry  into  natural  causation. 

Aristotle's  scientific  teachings  were  continued  by 
his  pupils  among  the  Peripatetics,  Theophrastus 
and  Preaxagoras,  and  their  successors,  Herophilus 
and  Erasistratus.  Unfortunately,  the  greater  part 
of  the  works  of  Theophrastus,  who  was  both  bota- 
nist and  mineralogist,  are  lost;  his  History  of 
Plants  was  an  attempt  to  supplement  the  History 
of  Animals  of  his  master.  The  last  two  members 
of  this  school  were  physicians,  who  continued  their 
studies  in  Alexandria  and  became  the  most  dis- 
tinguished human  anatomists  of  the  time  before 
Galen. 

Pliny  (a.d.  23-79),  the  Roman,  the  next  natural- 
ist of  note,  was  rather  a  collector  of  anecdotes  than 
an  observer.  The  last  of  the  Greek  naturalists 
were  Dioscoridus,  a  physician,  observer,  and  bota- 
nist living  in  the  time  of  the  Caesars,  and  the  cele- 
brated Galen,  physician  and  anatomist,  living  under 
Marcus  Aurelius.     Galen  (131-200)  has  been  com- 


EPICURUS.  CQ 

pared  both  with  Hippocrates  (b.c.  460-377)  and 
with  Aristotle,  whose  method  of  observation  he 
followed  and  applied  to  human  anatomy.  This 
was  the  waning  of  the  scientific  movement  under 
Grecian  influence. 

Let  us  now  return  to  the  successors  of  Democri- 
tus.  The  only  writer  of  the  Third  or  Post-Aris- 
totelian Period  of  Greek  Philosophy  who  concerns 
us  here  is  Epicurus. 

,  Epicurus'  (341-270)  chief  interest  in  philosophy 
was  to  establish  the  principle  of  natural  versus  that 
of  supernatural  causation.  He  originated  nothing 
in  Evolution,  but  gathered  from  Empedocles  and 
Democritus  arguments  in  support  of  the  principle 
of  natural  law.  Zeller  observes  as  his  characteristic 
that  he  was  totally  lacking  in  the  scientific  spirit 
which  could  qualify  him  as  an  investigator.  His 
main  animus  was  to  combat  the  supernatural  from 
every  side,  yet  he  was  unable  to  direct  his  followers 
to  any  naturalistic  explanation  of  value,  giving  them 
rather  free  rein  in  the  choice  of  the  most  ground- 
less hypotheses.  As  for  the  general  conception 
that  the  purposeful  could  arise  by  selection  or  sur- 
vival from  the  unpurposeful,  which  is  credited  to 
Epicureanism  by  some  modern  writers,  this  con- 
ception belongs  primarily  to  Aristotle,  who,  as  we 
have  seen,  formulated  the  crude  myth  of  Empedo- 
cles into  the  lans^uao^e  of  modern  science,  with  the 
motive  of  clearly  stating  a  possible  explanation  of 
the    origin    of  the    purposeful    in   order  to   clearly 


6o  AMONG    THE    GREEKS. 

refute  it.     Epicurus  was  influenced  by  Democritus 
and  his  doctrine  of  Atomism,  excluding  Teleology 
at  every  present  point  as  well  as  at  the  beginning 
of  the  world,  supporting  the  mechanical  conception 
of   Nature,  and  maintaining   that   every  individual 
thing    is    to   be   explained  in  a  purely  mechanicaL 
manner.     Convinced  that  only  natural  causes  pre- 
vail,   Epicurus   did    not    concern    himself    with    in- 
quiries   as    to    their   character.       He   also    taught] 
the  origin  of  life  by  spontaneous  generation,  that' 
living  beings  arose  directly  from  the  earth,  including 
many  marvellous  forms,  and  adopted  Empedocles' 
notion,  that  only  those  capable  of  life  and  reproduc- 
tion have  been  preserved.  -^ 

From  Epicurus  we  take  a  long  leap  in  time  to 
T.  Lucretius  Carus,  the  Roman  poet,  whose  inquiry 
into  the  origin  and  nature  of  living  things,  as  we 
have  observed,  revived  the  teachings  of  Emped- 
ocles, of  Democritus,  and  especially  of  Epicurus. 
He  connected  with  these  many  observations  of  his 
own.  The  fact  that  he  was  an  original  observer  of 
Nature  must  be  inferred  from  his  considerable 
knowledge  of  animals  and  plants.  It  is  possible 
that  the  observations  treated  in  his  great  poem  may 
have  been  more  precisely  recorded  in  some  of  his 
lost  books. 

Lucretius  (99-55)  was  the  second  poet  of  Evo^ 
lution.     His  De  Reru7n   Nattira    resuscitated    the 
doctrines  of  Epicurus,  and  set  them  in  a  far  more 
favourable   light,  building  up  anew  the  mechanical 


LUCRETIUS.  6 1 

conception  of  Nature.  Lucretius  was  also  familiar 
with  Empedocles,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  puts  his 
teachings  in  verse.  Here,  again,  is  a  difference  of 
opinion  between  Lange  and  Zeller.  Lange  refers 
to  the  end  of  the  first  book,  in  which  he  claims  that 
Lucretius  briefly  announces  the  magnificent  doc- 
trine first  proposed  by  Empedocles,  that  all  the 
adaptations  to  be  found  in  the  Universe,  and  espe- 
cially in  organic  life,  are  merely  special  cases  of  the 
infinite  possibilities  of  mechanical  events.  Thus 
Lucretius  says :  — 

"  For  verily  not  by  design  do  the  first  beginnings  of  things 
station  themselves  each  in  his  right  place,  occupied  by  keen- 
sighted  intelligence,  .  .  .  but  because  after  trying  motions  and 
unions  of  every  kind,  at  length  they  fall  into  arrangements,  such 
as  those  out  of  which  this  our  sum  of  things  has  been  formed,  .  .  . 
and  the  earth,  fostered  by  the  heat  of  the  sun,  begins  to  renew 
this  produce,  and  the  race  of  Hving  things  to  come  up  and 
flourish." 

Zeller  rightly  contends  that  Lucretius  did  not 
really  apply  the  Empedocles  theory  to  the  origin 
of  adaptations  as  in  the  modern  Darwinian  sense; 
for  his  treatment  is  simply  a  poetical  restatement  of 
Empedocles'  own  words,  unmodified  by  the  great 
advances  of  science.  The  creations  which,  accord- 
ing to  Lucretius,  were  thus  eliminated  from  the 
earth  were  the  mythical  monsters,  such  as  the 
Centaurs  and  the  Chimceras. 

Lucretius  places  the  mechanical  conception  of 
Nature  over  aeainst  the  teleological ;  we  find  that 


62  AMONG    THE    GREEKS. 

he  does  not  carry  his  conception  of  Nature  as 
Aristotle  does  into  the  law  of  gradual  development 
of  organic  life,  but  like  Parmenides,  Democritus, 
and  Anaxagoras,  he  conceives  of  animals  as  arising 
directly  from  the  earth  :  "  Plants  and  trees,"  he  says^ 
(Book  V.  780),  "arise  directly  out  of  the  earth  in 
the  same  manner  that  feathers  and  hair  grow  from 
the  bodies  of  animals.  Living  beings  certainly  have 
not  fallen  down  from  heaven,  nor,  as  Anaxagoras 
supposed,  have  land  animals  arisen  from  the  sea. 
But  as  even  now  many  animals  under  the  influence 
of  rain,  and  the  heat  of  the  sun,  arise  from  the 
earth,  so  under  the  fresh,  youthful,  productive 
forces  of  the  younger  earth,  they  were  spontane- 
ously produced  in  larger  numbers.  In  this  manner 
were  first  produced  birds,  from  the  warmth  of 
spring ;  then  other  animals  sprang  from  the  womb 
of  the  earth,  since  first  mounds  grew  up  from 
which  people  sprang  forth,  for  they  had  been 
nourished  within.  In  an  analogous  manner  these 
young  earth-children  were  nourished  by  springs 
of  milk." 

Only  as  an  after-thought,  not  as  a  part  of  Nature's 
method,  Lucretius  borrows  from  Epicurus,  and  thus 
probably  Indirectly  from  Empedocles,  the  Survival 
of  the  Fittest  idea  that  some  of  these  earth-born 
beings  were  unable  to  live,  and  were  replaced  by 
others.  As  a  rationalist,  he  naturally  suppressed 
the  mythological  Centaur  and  Chimaera  from  his 
direct  history  of    Creation.     In  the  following  pas- 


LUCRETIUS.  5^ 

sages  we  find  these  purely  fanciful  speculations  of 
Lucretius  beautifully  expressed :  — 

"  And  first  the  race  she  reared  of  verdant  herbs 
GHstening  o'er  every  hill ;  the  fields  at  large 
.    Shone  with  the  verdant  tincture,  and  the  trees 
Felt  the  deep  impulse,  and  with  outstretched  arms 
Broke  from  their  bonds  rejoicing.     As  the  down 
Shoots  from  the  winged  nations,  or  from  beasts 
Bristles  or  hair,  so  poured  the  new-born  earth 
Plants,  fruits,  and  herbage.     Then,  in  order  next, 
Raised  she  the  sentient  tribes,  in  various  modes. 
By  various  powers  distinguished  :  for  nor  heaven 
Down  dropped  them,  nor  from  ocean's  briny  waves 
Sprang  they,  terrestrial  sole  ;  whence,  justly.  Earth 
Claims  the  dear  name  of  mother,  since  alone 
Flowed  from  herself  whate'er  the  sight  surveys. 

E'en  now  oft  rears  she  many  a  sentient  tribe. 
By  showers  and  sunshine  ushered  into  day. 
Whence  less  stupendous  tribes  should  then  have  risen 
More,  and  of  ampler  make,  herself  new-formed. 
In  flower  of  youth,  and  Ether  all  mature. 

Of  these  birds  first,  of  wing  and  plume  diverse, 
Broke  their  light  shells  in  springtime  :  as  in  spring 
Still  breaks  the  grasshopper  his  curious  web. 
And  seeks,  spontaneous,  foods  and  vital  air. 

Hence  the  dear  name  of  mother,  o'er  and  o'er, 
Earth  claims  most  justly,  since  the  race  of  man 
Long  bore  she  of  herself,  each  brutal  tribe 
Wild-wandering  o'er  the  mountains,  and  the  birds 
Gay-winged,  that  cleave,  diverse,  the  liquid  air." 

It  thus  appears  that  we  cannot  truly  speak  of 
Lucretius  as  an  evolutionist,  in  the  sense  of  grad- 
ual development  by  descent,  although  he  believed 


64  AMONG    THE    GREEKS. 

in  the  successive  appearance  of  different  forms  of 
life.  His  nearest  approach  to  true  Evolution  teach- 
ing was  in  his  account  of  the  development  of  the 
faculties  and  arts  among  the  races  of  men.  In 
shutting  out  Aristotle  and  his  view  of  Nature,  he 
excluded  the  only  Greek  who  came  near  the  mod- 
ern idea  of  descent  of  higher  forms  from  lower. 
The  animals  and  plants  of  Lucretius  arise  full- 
formed  direct  from  the  earth.  This  is  not  Evolu- 
^tion,  yet  it  plays  an  important  part  in  the  later 
history  of  the  idea.  Views  not  unlike  these  were 
revived  as  late  as  the  eighteenth  century. 

Although  a  Roman,  Lucretius  was  virtually  a 
Greek  in  his  natural  philosophy.  He  terminated 
a  period  of  thought,  and  in  his  poem  summed  up 
all  the  non-Aristotelian  teachings  in  a  pure  form. 
After  him  the  Greek  ideas  were  grafted  upon 
Arabic  and  Christian  philosophy  and  science. 
This  is,  therefore,  the  point  at  which  to  consider 
what  were  the  Greek  legacies  to  their  followers. 

„  The  Legacy  of  the  Greeks. 

The  first  element  in  the  legacy  of  the  Greeks 
was  their  scientific  curiosity,  their  desire  to  find  a 
natural  explanation  for  the  origin  and  existence  of 
things.  This  is  by  no  means  a  universal  character- 
istic of  the  human  mind,  for  we  know  that  many 
Eastern  races  are  wholly  devoid  of  it,  and  have 
made  no  scientific  progress.     The  ground   motive 


LEGACY   OF   THE    GREEKS.  6$ 

in  science  is  a  high  order  of  curiosity,  led  on  by 
ambition  to  overcome  obstacles. 

The  first  biological  question  asked  by  the  Greeks 
was  as  to  the  origin  of  life ;  and  extremely  early 
arose  the  doctrine  of  Anaximander,  that  all  life  ' 
originated  in  spontaneous  generation  from  the 
water.  Later  this  was  somewhat  modified  into  the  / 
doctrine  that  life  originated  in  the  primordial  ter- 
restrial slime,  or  mingling  of  earth  and  water,  \ 
especially  along  the  emerging  shores  of  the  earth. 
This  was  held  by  Empedocles.  Later  still,  quite  a 
distinct  idea  was  put  forth  by  Anaxagoras,  that  life 
originated  in  the  coming  together  and  development 
of  pre-existent  germs  in  the  air  or  ether,  animals 
and  plants  springing  directly  from  them.  This 
origin  of  life  from  germs,  of  course  surreptitiously 
placed  the  problem  only  one  degree  further  back, 
apparently,  but  not  really  evading  the  difiiculty. 
It  was  a  fruitful  idea,  and  thereafter  many  of  the 
doctrines  as  to  the  origin  of  life  contained  the  con- 
ception of  primordial  germs.  Aristotle  came  near- 
est the  modern  conception  of  protozoan  primordial 
life  when  he  wrote  that  all  animals  and  plants  origi- 
nated in  germs  composed  of  soft  masses  of  matter, 
although  he  inconsistently  taught  that  even  some 
of  the  higher  forms  sprang  directly  from  the  earth, 
leaving  out  the  germ  stage  altogether. 

The  real  Evolution  idea  among  the  Greeks  had 
its  roots  in  the  notion  of  the  changing  rather  than 
of   the    fixed    order ^oTThii-igs,  'which    came   from 


66  AMONG    THE    GREEKS. 

Heraclitus.  The  essence  of  this  principle,  that 
everything  was  in  a  state  of  movement,  and  noth- 
ing had  reached  a  state  of  rest,  underHes  the  later 
doctrine  of  the  gradually  increasing  perfection  of 
organisms.  The  essence  of  the  idea  of  the  grad- 
ual development  of  organisms,  however,  was  much 
earlier,  for  it  originated  with  Anaximander,  upon 
whose  rude  notion  of  the  origin  of  the  'fish-men' 
Empedocles  and  other  writers  built  up  their  theo- 
ries. Empedocles  added  to  the  conception  of  devel- 
opment a  number  of  important  principles.  First,  \ 
he  suggested  that  plant  life  preceded  animal  life, 
and  this  suggestion  was  taken  up  and  expanded  by 
Aristotle.  Second,  he  concluded  that  the  present 
world  of  life  was  still  formative  or  incomplete,  a 
modification  of  the  general  notion  of  Heraclitus. 
Third,  he  suggested,  with  apparently  remarkable 
prevision,  that  the  first  organisms  were  formless 
masses  without  distinctions  of  sex,  that  afterwards 
the  sexes  were  separated,  and  that  the  existing 
modes  of  reproduction  of  the  less  perfect  were 
followed  by  the  more  perfect.  This  idea,  as  we 
have  seen,  however,  was  not  even  remotely  related 
to  our  modern  conception  of  primordial  asexual 
organisms,  for  his  'formless  masses'  were  mytho- 
logical monsters. 

Empedocles  further  set  forth  a  rude  doctrine  of 
the  successive  production  directly  from  the  earth 
of  larger  animal  types  possessing  greater  or  lesser 
capacity  of  living  and  reproducing.     The  less  per- 


LEGACY   OF   THE    GREEKS.  6/ 

feet  forms,  as  well  as  the  more  perfect,  were  pro- 
duced fortuitously.  The  misshapen,  ill-combined 
monsters  were  eliminated,  one  after  the  other,  until 
finally  Nature  produced  animals  capable  of  feeding 
themselves  and  of  propagation.  Aristotle  devel- 
oped a  wholly  different  notion  of  successive  develop- 
ment, more  like  the  modern  theory  in  the  succession 
of  higher  organisms  from  lower  by  descent  and 
modification. 

Together  with  these  vague  conceptions  of  the 
fact  of  the  gradual  Evolution  of  life,  was  associated 
as  a  theoretical  explanation,  first,  the  dimly  fore- 
shadowed 'Survival  of  the  Fittest' theory  of  Emped-^ 
ocles,  that  the  perfect  forms  were  finally  produced! 
as  the  result  of  a  long  series  of  fortuitous  combina- 
tions, and  the  wholly  diverse  theory  of  Aristotle 
that  there  was  no  fortuity  in  Evolution,  but  that 
the  succession  of  forms  was  due  to  the  action  of  an 
internal  perfecting  principle  originally  implanted 
by  the  Divine  Intelligence. 

Finally,  the  principles  of  Adaptation,  or  fitness  of 
certain  structures  to  certain  ends,  had  been  clearly 
brought  out,  and  gave  rise  to  the  distinct  problem 
of  the  origin  or  cause  of  adaptations.  So  that  we 
can  find  in  Aristotle,  most  clearly  stated,  the  great 
question  which  has  been  one  of  the  burning  ques- 
tions of  Biology  ever  since  —  Whether  or  not 
adaptations  are  due  solely  to  the  fortuitous  com- 
bination of  parts  .^ 

Thus  the  Greeks  left  the  later  world  face  to  face 


68  AMONG    THE    GREEKS, 

with  the  problem  of  Causation  in  three  forms:  first, 
whether  IntelHgent  Design  is  constantly  operating 
in  Nature ;  second,  whether  Nature  is  under  the 
operation  of  natural  causes  originally  implanted  by 
Intelligent  Design ;  and  third,  whether  Nature  is 
under  the  operation  of  natural  causes  due  from  the 
beginning  to  the  laws  of  chance,  and  containing  no 
evidences  of  design,  even  in  their  origin. 


III. 


THE   THEOLOGIANS   AND    NATURAL 

PHILOSOPHERS. 

Eine  hochst  wichtige  Betrachtung  der  Geschichte  der  Wissenschaften  ist  die, 
dass  sich  aus  den  ersten  Anfangen  einer  Entdeckung  manches  in  den  Gang  des 
Wissens  heran-  und  durchzieht,  welches  den  Fortschritt  hindert,  sogar  cifters 
lahmt.  —  Goethe. 

As  all  learning  in  Europe  was  for  centuries  under 
the  guardianship  of  the  Church,  it  is  important  to 
look  into  the  teachings  of  the  great  theologians 
upon  the  origin  and  development  of  life.  This 
teaching  sprang  from  two  sources,  —  the  revelation 
of  the  order  of  Creation  in  the  Book  of  Genesis, 
and  the  natural  philosophy  of  Plato  and  Aristotle. 

Philo  of  Alexandria  introduced  in  the  first  century 
what  has  been  described  as  the  '  Hellenizing  of  the 
Old  Testament,'  or  the  allegorical  method  of  exe- 
gesis. By  this,  as  Erdmann  observes,  the  Bible 
narrative  was  found  to  contain  a  deeper,  and  par- 
ticularly an  allegorical,  in  addition  to  its  literal, 
interpretation ;  this  was  not  conscious  disingcnu- 
ousness  but  a  natural  mode  of  amalgamating  the 
Greek  philosophic  with  the  Hebraic  doctrines. 

Amonor  the  Christian  Fathers  the  movement 
towards  a  partly  naturalistic  interpretation  of  the 
order  of  Creation  was  made  by  Gregory  of  Nyssa 
in  the  fourth  century,  and  was  completed  by  Augus- 
tine in  the  fourth  and   fifth  centuries.     Plainly  as 

69 


70  THEOLOGIANS  AND  NATURAL   PHILOSOPHERS. 

the  direct  or  instantaneous  Creation  of  animals  and 
plants  appeared  to  be  taught  in  Genesis,  Augustine 
read  this  in  the  light  of  primary  causation  and  the 
gradual  development  from  the  imperfect  to  the 
perfect  of  Aristotle. 

This  most  influential  teacher  thus  handed  down 
to  his  followers  opinions  which  closely  conform  to 
the  progressive  views  of  those  theologians  of  the 
present  day  who  have  accepted  the  Evolution 
theory.  In  proof  of  this  Greek  influence  we  find 
that  Augustine  also  adopted  some  of  the  Greek 
notions  of  the  spontaneous  generation  of  life.  In 
the  Middle  Ages  analogous  views  were  held  by 
Erigena,  Roscellinus,  William  of  Occam,  Albertus 
Magnus;  and  Augustine  was  finally  followed  by 
Aquinas,  who  is  now  one  of  the  leading  authorities 
of  the  Church.  Bruno  struck  out  into  an  altogether 
different  vein  of  thought. 

The  reaction  against  this  scientific  reading  of 
Genesis  naturally  came  when  Christian  theology 
shook  off  Aristotelianism,  and  this  was  brought 
about  indirectly  by  the  opposition  to  the  Arabic 
science,  which  also  embodied  much  of  Aristotle. 
Thus  the  first  outspoken  opponent  of  Augustine's 
teaching,  and  first  champion  of  literalism,  was  Sua-i 
rez,  a  Jesuit  of  Spain,  a  country  which  had  become 
the  second  home  of  Arabic  science  and  philosophy. 

No  advance  whatever  in  the  development  of  the 
Evolution  idea  was  made  in  this  long  period  ;  scien- 
tific speculation  and  observation  were  at  a  standstill 


AUGUSTINE.  7  J 

except  among  the  Arabs.  It  is  a  record  of  tlie 
preservation  of  the  progress  towards  the  idea  wliich 
the  Greeks  had  made.  In  the  very  decades  when 
this  progress  was  stamped  out  of  theology  in  Spain 
and  Italy,  the  modern  era  in  the  development  of 
the  idea  was  opening  in  the  teachings  of  Francis 
Bacon  and  of  the  natural  philosophers  who  closely 
succeeded  him. 


The  Fathers  and  Schoolmen. 

Gregory  of  Nyssa  (331-396)  taught  that  Crea- 
tion was  potential.  God  imparted  to  matter  its 
fundamental  properties  and  laws.  The  objects  and 
completed  forms  of  the  Universe  developed  gradu- 
ally out  of  chaotic  material. 

Augustine  (353-430)  drew  this  distinction  still 
more  sharply,  as  Cotterill  and  Giittler  show,  between 
the  virtual  creation  of  organisms,  the  ratio  semi- 
nalis,  and  the  actual  visible  cominor  forth  of  thincrs 
out  of  formless  matter.  All  development  takes  its 
natural  course  through  the  powers  imparted  to 
matter  by  the  Creator.  Even  the  corporeal  struct- 
ure of  man  himself  is  according  to  this  plan  and 
therefore  a  product  of  this  natural  development. 
Augustine,  as  to  the  origin  of  life,  took  his  ground 
half-way  between  Biogenesis  and  Abiogenesis. 
From  the  beo^innine  there  had  existed  two  kinds  of 
germs  of  living  things :  first,  visible  ones,  placed  by 
the  Creator  in  animals  and  plants;  and  second,  in- 


72  THEOLOGIANS  AND  NATURAL  PHILOSOPHERS. 

visible  ones,  latent  and  becoming  active  only  under 
certain  conditions  of  combination  and  temperature. 
It  is  these  which  produce  plants  and  animals  in 
great  numbers  without  any  co-operation  of  existing 
organisms.  Augustine  thus  sought  a  naturalistic 
interpretation  of  the  Mosaic  record,  or  potential 
rather  than  special  creation,  and  taught  that  in 
the  institution  of  Nature  we  should  not  look 
for  miracles  but  for  the  law^s  of  Nature.  As 
Moore  says  :  "  Augustine  distinctly  rejected  Special 
Creation  in  favour  of  a  doctrine  which,  without  any 
violence  to  language,  we  may  call  a  theory  of 
Evolution." 

Cotterill  traces  the  history  of  Augustine's  thought 
upon  Genesis.  At  first  he  found  almost  insuper- 
able difficulties  in  the  literal,  as  contrasted  with  the 
allegorical,  interpretation.  It  seems  that  the  account 
of  Creation  was  a  favourite  subject  of  ridicule  with 
the  Manichaeans,  who  denied  the  inspiration  of  the 
Old  Testament.  Thus  the  outcome  of  Augustine's 
studies  was  a  volume  entitled  De  Geiiesi  contra 
ManichcEOS. 

Augustine  took  a  sound  philosophical  position 
upon  natural  causation,  and  after  considering  the 
question  of  time,  and  saying  that  we  ought  not  to 
think  of  the  six  days  of  the  Creation  as  being 
equivalent  to  these  solar  days  of  ours,  nor  of  the 
working  of  God  itself  as  God  now  works  anything 
in  time,  but  rather  as  He  has  worked  from  Whom 
time  itself   had  its   beginning.     In   explaining  the 


AUGUSTINE, 


73 


passage,  "  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven 
and  the  earth,"  he  says:  — 

"In  the  beginning  God  made  the  heaven  and  the  earth,  as 
if  this  were  the  seed  of  the  heaven  and  the  earth,  although  as 
yet  all  the  matter  of  heaven  and  of  earth  was  in  confusion ;  but 
because  it  was  certain  that  from  this  the  heaven  and  the  earth  would 
be,  therefore  the  material  itself  is  called  by  that  name."  Again, 
as  in  the  foregoing  passage,  in  a  later  passage  he  speaks  of 
Creation  as  of  things  being  brought  into  due  order,  — "  not  by 
intervals  of  time,  but  by  series  of  causes,  so  that  those  things 
which  in  the  mind  of  God  were  made  simultaneously  might  be 
brought  to  their  completion  by  the  sixfold  representation  of 
that  one  day." 

Of  these  passages  Cotterill  remarks :  — 

"We  observe  that  both  the  language  itself  and,  yet  more, 
Augustine's  profound  sense  of  the  impossibility  of  representing 
in  the  forms  of  finite  thought  the  operations  of  the  infinite  and 
eternal  Mind  compelled  this  great  theologian  to  look  beyond 
the  mere  letter  of  the  inspired  history  of  Creation,  and  to  indi- 
cate principles  of  interpretation  which  supply  by  anticipation 
very  valuable  guidance,  when  we  compare  other  conclusions  of 
modern  science  with  this  teaching  of  Holy  Scripture." 

Cotterill  continues  that  Augustine  again  illus- 
trates the  work  of  Creation  by  the  growth  of  a  tree 
from  its  seed,  in  which  are  originally  all  its  various 
branches  and  other  parts,  which  do  not  suddenly 
spring  up  such  and  so  large  as  they  are  wlicn 
complete,  but  in  that  order  with  which  wc  are 
familiar  in  Nature.  All  these  things  are  in  the 
seed,  not  by  material  substance,  but  by  causal  energy 
and  pote7icy,   and   "  even  so  as  in  the   grain  itself 


74  THEOLOGIANS  AND  NATURAL  PHILOSOPHERS. 

there  were  invisible  all  things  simultaneously  which 
w^ere  in  time  to  grow  into  the  tree,  so  the  world 
itself  is  to  be  thought  of,  when  God  simultaneously 
created  all  things,  as  having  at  the  same  time  in 
itself  all  things  that  were  made  in  it  and  with  it, 
when  the  day  itself  was  created :  not  only  the 
heaven  with  the  sun  and  moon  and  stars,  and  so 
forth,  but  also  those  things  w^hich  the  water  and 
the  earth  produced  potentialiter  atque  causaliter ; 
before  that,  in  due  time,  and  after  long  delays,  they 
grew  up  in  such  manner  as  they  are  now  known  to 
us  in  those  works  of  God  which  He  is  working  even 
to  the  present  hour."  ^ 

With  Augustine  the  progress  of  comment  upon\ 
the  interpretation  of  Genesis  came  nearly  to  an  1 
end.  As  Giittler  observes,  men  in  the  cloisters  and"^ 
other  centres  of  culture  turned  to  medicine  and 
ethics  ;  yet,  even  in  this  dark  period,  an  occasional 
friend  of  the  gradual-creation  idea  appeared.  Such 
was  John  Scotus  Erigena  (800-  ),  who  simply 
borrowed  from  Aristotle  and  Augustine  :  "  From 
the  Uncreated  Creating  Principles  go  forth  created 
and  self-created  beings  under  the  embracing  causes 
primordiales.  These  causce  are  equivalent  to  the 
Greek  '  ideas,'  that  is  the  kinds,  the  eternal  forms 
and  unchangeable  grounds  of  reason  upon  which 
the  world  is  regulated.  Under  the  influence  of  the 
third  person  of  the  Godhead,  the  potentialities  of 
matter  are  developed,  out  of  which  creatures  take 
their  origin.     In  a  retrogressive  circle,  all  things 


AQUINAS.  '-     yc 

return  to  God";    here   Erigena  turned  to   Plato's 
conception  of  Final  Cause. 

Thomas  Aquinas.  —  Of  much  greater  influence 
is  the  teaching  of  Thomas  Aquinas  (1225-1274)  as 
late  as  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth  century,  for  he 
was  and  is  one  of  the  highest  authorities  in  the 
Church.  He  does  not  contribute  to  the  Evolution 
idea,  but  simply  expounds  Augustine :  "  As  to  pro- 
duction of  plants,  Augustine  holds  a  different  view, 
...  for  some  say  that  on  the  third  day  plants 
were  actually  produced,  each  in  his  kind  —  a  view 
favoured  by  the  superficial  reading  of  Scripture. 
But  Augustine  says  that  the  earth  is  then  said  to 
have  brought  forth  grass  and  trees  causaliter ;  that 
is,  it  then  received  power  to  produce  them."  (Quot- 
ing Genesis  II.  4):  "For  in  those  first  days,  .  .  . 
God  made  creation  primarily  or  causaliter,  and 
then  rested  from  His  work." 

Arabic  Science  and  Philosophy. 

If  we  now  look  back  several  centuries  before 
Aquinas  to  the  Arabs,  we  find  that,  while  science 
declined  in  Europe,  it  was  kept  alive,  or  rather  re- 
vived, in  Arabia.  The  natural  philosophy  of  the 
Arabs,  which  was  largely  derived  from  Aristotle, 
was  destined  to  exert  a  considerable  influence 
in  Europe.  Between  813  and  Z^  Aristotle  was 
translated  into  Arabic,  and  his  works  were  soon 
held  in  the  greatest  reverence.    Avicenna  (980-1037) 


^6  THEOLOGIANS  AND  NATURAL  PHILOSOPHERS. 

marked  the  highest  point  which  science  reached 
in  Arabia,  and  the  cuhiiination  of  the  encyclopaedic 
and  original  studies.  Thereafter  there  was  a  de- 
chne  in  the  East,  and  about  the  same  period  there 
came  the  inauguration  of  scientific  and  philosophi- 
cal studies  in  the  West.  Between  961  and  976 
scientific  works  were  rapidly  imported  into  Spain, 
and  the  interest  in  these  subjects  became  intense. 
The  three  writers  from  whom  we  may  quote 
fragments  are  Avicenna  in  Arabia,  and  Avempace 
and  Abubacer  in  Spain.  Draper  quotes  from  Avi- 
cenna on  the  origin  of  mountains,  showing  that  he 
was  a  uniformitarian  :  — 

"  Mountains  may  be  due  to  two  causes.  Either  they  are  effects 
of  upheavals  of  the  crust  of  the  earth,  such  as  might  occur  during 
a  violent  earthquake,  or  they  are  the  effect  of  water,  which,  cut- 
ting for  itself  a  new  route,  has  denuded  the  valleys,  the  strata  being 
of  different  kinds,  some  soft,  some  hard.  The  winds  and  waters 
disintegrate  the  one,  but  leave  the  other  intact.  Most  of  the  emi- 
nences of  the  earth  have  had  this  latter  origin.  It  would  require 
a  long  period  of  time  for  all  such  changes  to  be  accomplished, 
during  which  the  mountains  themselves  might  be  somewhat  dimin- 
ished in  size.  But  that  water  has  been  the  main  cause  of  these 
effects,  is  proved  by  the  existence  of  fossil  remains  of  aquatic  and 
other  animals  on  many  mountains." 

This  indicates  that  a  careful  search  through 
Arabic  natural  philosophy  would  probably  yield 
other  evidences  of  knowledge,  not  only  of  the  uni- 
formity of  past  and  present  geological  changes,  but 
of  the  gradual  development  of  life.  It  is  unlikely 
that  the  Arabs  read  Aristotle  without  extending  his 


A  V EM  PACE. 


77 


theory  of  the  origin  of  life  to  their  wide  survey  of 
Nature. 

We  take  from  Giittler  the  following  passages  re- 
garding the  Spanish  philosophers  :  — 

"  The  Arabic  philosophers  in  Spain  threw  into  a  stronger  light 
the  natural  connection  between  the  inorganic  and  the  organic 
world.  In  Avempace's  (Ibn-Badja)  treatise  there  are  said  to 
exist  between  men,  animals,  plants,  and  minerals,  strong  relations 
which  bind  them  into  a  single  and  united  whole.  Through 
various  grades  of  development,  the  human  soul  rises  from  the 
level  of  the  instincts  which  it  shares  with  animals  to  the  '  acquired 
intellect,'  wherein  it  frees  itself  more  and  more  from  the  material 
and  the  potential.  The  '  acquired  intellect '  is  only  an  elimination 
of  the  '  active  intellect,'  or  the  Godhead,  and  thereby  it  is  pos- 
sible to  identify  in  the  last  stage  of  recognition  the  subject  with 
the  object,  the  thought  with  the  existence." 

Avempace,  as  he  was  known  in  Europe,  died 
in  1 1 38.  He  was  succeeded  by  Abubacer  (Ibn- 
Tophail),  who  died  in  1185. 

Abubacer  was  also  a  poet,  and  he  handled  an 
analogous  theme  in  an  Oriental  romance  upon  the 
birth  of  the  '  Nature-man  ' :  — 

"  There  happens  to  be  under  the  equator  an  island,  where  Man 
comes  into  the  world  without  father  or  mother ;  by  spontaneous 
generation  he  arises,  directly  in  the  form  of  a  boy,  from  the  earth, 
while  the  spirit,  which,  like  the  sunshine,  emanated  from  God, 
imites  with  the  body,  growing  out  of  a  soft,  unformed  mass. 
Without  any  intelligent  surroundings,  and  without  education,  this 
'  Nature-man,'  through  simple  observation  of  the  outer  world,  and 
through  the  combination  of  various  appearances,  rises  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  world  and  of  the  Godhead.  First  he  perceives 
the  individuals,  and  then   he  recognizes  the  various  species  as 


yS  THEOLOGIANS  AND  NATURAL  PHILOSOPHERS. 

independent  forms ;  but  as  he  compares  the  varieties  and  species 
with  each  other,  he  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  they  are  all 
sprung  from  a  single  animal  spirit,  and  at  the  same  time  that  the 
entire  animal  race  forms  a  single  whole.  He  makes  the  same  dis- 
covery among  the  plants,  and  finally  he  sees  the  animal  and  plant 
forms  in  their  unity,  and  discovers  that  among  all  their  differences 
they  have  sensitiveness  and  feeling  in  common ;  from  which  he 
concludes  that  animals  and  plants  are  only  one  and  the  same 
thing." 

In  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century,  the  transla- 
tion of  the  works  of  the  Arabs  into  Latin  began}\ 
The  Church  Provincial  Council  of  Paris  in  1209 
forbade  the  study  of  these  Arabic  writers,  and 
included  Aristotle's  Natural  PJiilosophy  in  the 
interdict,  although  Albertus  Magnus  and  Thomas 
Aquinas  endeavoured  to  uphold  the  orthodoxy  of 
Aristotle  against  the  prejudices  which  the  heretical 
glosses  of  Arabic  writers  had  raised  against  him.  J 

Bruno  and  Suarez. 

In  the  same  year  with  Bruno,  the  most  extreme 
rationalist  among  the  theologians  in  science,  was 
born  Suarez,  the  most  extreme  conservative. 

Giordano  Bruno  (i  548-1600),  in  his  biology, 
imbibed  the  diverse  influences  of  the  Greeks,  of 
Lucretius,  of  Arabic  philosophy,  and  of  Oriental 
mysticism,  and  evolved  a  highly  speculative  and 
vague  system  of  natural  philosophy.  From  the 
physics  of  the  Stoics  he  derived  the  idea  that  all 
living  beings  had  a  greater  or  less  share  of  the 


BRUNO,  yg 

Universal  Force,  a  force  which  leads  to  steps  corre- 
sponding in  the  world  of  organized  beings  to  a 
gradated  scale  of  development  (like  the  scale  of 
Aristotle,  or,  later,  of  Bonnet,  in  which  each  form 
was  a  starting-point  for  the  next).  Therefore 
Bruno  saw  in  plants  the  latent  forces  of  the  gene- 
ration of  animals;  in  stones,  the  collective  kinds 
of  plants;  in  man,  the  whole  lower  creation. 
GUttler  traces  Bruno's  philosophy  to  Nicolas  of 
Cusa,  and  characterizes  it  as  monistic.  Lanee  and 
Erdmann  more  accurately  speak  of  his  system  as 
pantheistic.  In  profession,  but  not  in  method, 
Bruno  was  scientific.  He  followed  Aristotle,  and 
forestalled  Bacon,  in  teaching  Induction ;  one  of 
his  chief  maxims  being  that  "  the  investigation 
of  Nature  in  the  unbiased  light  of  reason  is  our 
only  guide  to  truth."  Bruno's  admirers  have  re- 
cently claimed  for  him  anticipation  not  only  of  the 
method  of  Bacon,  but  of  the  'perfection'  doctrine 
and  the  theory  of  monads  of  Leibnitz,  and  point 
out  in  his  physical  teachings  the  theory  of  the 
centre  of  gravity  of  planets,  of  the  elliptical  orbits 
of  comets,  and  the  perfect  sphericity  of  the  earth. 

By  selecting  certain  passages  from  his  profuse 
writings,  we  may  credit  Bruno  with  teaching  some 
elements  of  the  Evolution  idea;  but  we  must  first 
see  how  such  special  passages  are  enlarged  by 
others,  in  order  to  reach  Bruno's  real  conceptions. 
In  estimating  his  originality,  we  must  be  familiar 
with   Greek,   Arabic,  and   Oriental    writings,  from 


80  THEOLOGIANS  AND  NATURAL  PHILOSOPHERS. 

which  he  drew  as  an  omnivorous  reader.  Some  of 
the  passages  quoted  by  Brinton  and  others  give  a 
very  misleading  idea  of  the  real  extent  of  Bruno's 
grasp,  for  we  unconsciously  read  into  them  our 
present  knowledge,  as  where  he  says :  "  The  mind  of 
man  differs  from  that  of  lower  animals  and  of  plants, 
not  in  quality  but  in  quantity.  .  .  .  Each  individ- 
ual is  the  resultant  of  innumerable  individuals.  .  .  . 
Each  species  is  the  starting-point  for  the  next.  .  .  . 
No  individual  is  the  same  to-day  as  yesterday." 

Bruno,  with  Aristotle,  finds  that  this  eternal 
change  is  not  purposeless,  but  is  ever  towards  the 
elimination  of  defects ;  henoe  his  alleged  anticipa-, 
tion  of  the  optimism  of  Leibnitz  and  of  the  theory 
of  the  perfectibility  of  man.  As  to  'matter 'and 
*form,'  we  again  find  him  following  Aristotle  in 
some  passages  ;  with  him,  Form  seems  to  stand 
for  the  ultimate  law  of  the  objective  Universe,  yet 
matter  is  not  complete  in  its  forms,  because 
"  Nature  produces  its  objects  not  by  subtraction 
and  addition,  but  only  by  separation  and  unfolding. 
Thus  taught  the  wisest  men  among  the  Greeks  ; 
and  Moses,  in  describing  the  origin  of  life,  intro- 
duces the  universal  efiicient  Being  thus  speaking : 
'  Let  the  earth  bring  forth  the  living  creature  ; 
let  the  waters  bring  forth  the  living  creature  that 
hath  life'  —  as  though  he  said  —  'let  matter  bring 
them  forth.'  "  But  we  find  an  important  departure 
from  Aristotle,  where  Bruno  conceives  of  matter 
not  as  potential  but  as  actual  and  active. 


BRUNO.  8 1 

There  is  thus  great  room  for  difference  of  opinion 
as  to  how  far  Bruno  was  an  evolutionist  in  our 
sense,  and  we  find  different  authors  taking  different 
standpoints  according  to  their  greater  or  less  appre- 
ciation of  the  essential  elements  of  the  Evolution 
idea.  Lasson  holds  that  Bruno  was  a  follower  of 
Empedocles,  and  therein  a  prophet  of  Darwinism, 
in  the  capacity  of  perfection  and  the  unity  of  devel- 
opment of  organic  life.  Krause,  in  his  biography 
of  Erasmus  Darwin,  maintains  that  Bruno  held 
merely  to  the  identity  of  the  human  and  animal 
soul,  without  actually  conceiving  their  unity  of 
orio^in.  Here  enters  Aristotelianism  aoain  in 
Bruno's  thought,  for  while  he  conceived  all  Evo- 
lution as  based  on  endless  changes  in  matter,  he 
describes  this  movement  simply  as  the  outward 
expression  of  an  indwelling  soul.  This  intelli- 
gence is  displayed  in  three  grades,  which  corre- 
spond with  the  steps  in  the  scale  of  development, 
because  we  are  free  to  suppose  that  "  to  the  sound 
of  the  harp  of  the  Universal  Apollo  (the  World 
Spirit),  the  lower  organisms  are  called  by  stages 
to  higher,  and  the  lower  stages  are  connected  by 
intermediate  forms  with  the  higher.  .  .  .  Every 
species  is  first  shown  in  Nature  before  it  passes 
into  life,  thus  each  becomes  the  starting-point  for 
the  next ;  as  in  the  expansion  of  the  form  of  the 
embryo  there  is  an  unbroken  continuity  into  the 
species  of  man  or  beast."  At  other  points  he 
speaks  as  if  this  soul  or  intelligence  was  conceived 


82  THEOLOGIANS  AND  NATURAL  PHILOSOPHERS. 

in  a  dualistic  sense,  for  he  says :  "  The  perfecting 
power  of  intelligence  does  not  rest  upon  another 
or  upon  more,  but  upon  the  whole." 

In  Geology,  Bruno  appears  as  a  uniformitarian, 
and  describes  the  gradual  changes  in  Nature,  not 
as  cataclysmal,  but  as  following  their  natural  course. 
Thus,  he  argues  against  the  short  six  thousand 
years  of  the  Biblical  chronology.  This  was  also 
not  original  with  Bruno ;  for  he  was  preceded  in 
the  tenth  century  by  Arabic  geologists,  as  seen 
in  the  quotation  from  Avicenna.  It  is  highly  prob- 
able that  Bruno  drew  upon  the  Arabs  for  many 
other  of  his  scientific  ideas. 

Finally  we  may  quote  a  passage  from  Bruno's 
satire,  —  the  Cabala  of  the  Pegasan  Horse^  pub- 
lished in  1585,  a  dialogue  between  Sabasto  and 
Onorio,  in  which  Bruno  affirms  the  Oriental  doc- 
trine of  Metempsychosis,  and  explains  his  views 
of  the  development  of  organic  life.  He  first  com- 
pares the  animal  and  human  intellect  and  contrasts 
monkeys  with  men  in  their  absence  of  tool-bearing 
hands.  Speaking  of  the  tongue  of  the  parrot  as 
fitted  to  utter  any  sort  of  sound,  he  says  that  the 
parrot  lacks  perception  and  memory  equal  and  akin 
to  man's ;  then  he  ^:ouches  upon  the  instincts  of 
the  parrot  and  opposes  the  idea  that  they  are  alto- 
gether different  from  the  intelligence  of  man.  Then 
he  passes  on  to  say  that  the  lower  animals  are 
directed  by  an  unerring  intelligence,  yet  this  Is  not 
identical   with    the   efficient    universal  intelligence 


SUAREZ.  83 

which  directs  and  causes  all  to  understand.  Thus, 
"above  all  animals  there  is  an  active  sense;  that  is, 
one  which  causes  all  different  sensations,  and  by 
which  all  are  actually  sensitive ;  and  one  active  in- 
tellect, the  one,  that  is,  which  causes  all  different 
understanding  and  by  which  all  are  actively  intelli- 
gent." He  goes  on  to  say  that  out  of  the  same 
corporeal  material,  all  bodies  are  made,  and  then 
occurs  the  following  paragraph:  "I  add  this  — 
'  that  through  diverse  causes,  habits,  orders,  meas- 
ures, and  numbers  of  body  and  spirit,  there  are 
diverse  temperaments  and  natures,  different  organs 
are  produced,  and  different  genera  of  things  appear.'" 
Francisco  Suarez  (i 548-161 7)  was  almost  the 
last  eminent  representative  of  Scholasticism.  Mivart, 
in  his  Genesis  of  Species,  places  him  among  the  post- 
medieval  theologians  of  high  authority,  who  devoted 
a  separate  section  of  their  works  "  in  opposition  to 
those  who  maintain  the  distinct  creation  of  the  vari- 
ous kinds  —  or  substantial  forms  —  of  organic  life." 
We  thus  derive  the  impression  that  Suarez  should 
be  classed  with  Augustine  and  Aquinas  as  a  teacher 
of  development;  but  Huxley  in  his  brilliant  article, 
"Mr.  Darwin's  Critics,"^  completely  dismisses  this 
enrolment  with  the  Evolutionists,  and  sets  him  up 
as  a  rigid  Special  Creationist.  He  was,  in  fact,  the 
third  sreat  theolodan  to  treat  of  Creation,  and  yet 
as  he  differed  radically  in  his  interpretation  of  Gene- 
sis from  both  Augustine  and  Aquinas,  he  may  be 

1  The  Contemporary  Review,  1 87 1. 


84  THEOLOGIANS  AND   NATURAL  PHILOSOPILERS. 

considered  one  of  the  founders  of  the  Special-Crea- 
tion view  as  orthodox  teaching  upon  the  origin 
of  species,  —  the  teaching  which  more  than  any 
other  has  led  to  the  schism  among  the  philoso- 
phers of  Nature.  Mivart  quotes  a  number  of 
passages  showing  that  Suarez  gave  this  matter  con- 
siderable thought.  As  was  later  done  by  Linnaeus, 
Suarez  pointed  out  that  there  might  be  some  new 
or  post-creation  species  which  were  generated  by 
the  commingling  of  original  species ;  he  considered 
the  mule  and  the  leopard  as  instances  of  this  kind. 

Huxley  also  shows  that  Suarez  devotes  a  special 
treatise,  Tractatus  de  opere  sex  Dierum,  to  the  dis- 
cussion of  all  the  problems  which  arise  out  of  the 
Mosaic  account  of  Creation;  he  here  reviews  the 
opinions  of  Philo  and  Augustine  upon  these  ques- 
tions, and  distinctly  rejects  them.  He  suggests  that 
the  failure  of  Aquinas  to  controvert  Augustine's 
interpretation,  arose  from  his  deference  to  the  au- 
thority of  Augustine,  and  he  maintains  that  the  '  day  ' 
of  Scripture  was  a  natural  day  of  twenty-four  hours, 
not  a  period  of  time  as  Augustine  considered  it ;  he 
further  declares  that  the  entire  work  of  Creation 
took  place  in  the  space  of  six  days.  Huxley  con- 
cludes :  — 

"  As  regards  the  creation  of  animals  and  plants,  therefore,  it  is 
clear  that  Suarez,  so  far  from  distinctly  asserting  derivative  creation, 
denies  it  as  distinctly  and  positively  as  he  can ;  that  he  is  at  much 
pains  to  refute  St.  Augustine's  opinions  ;  that  he  does  not  hesitate 
to  regard  the  faint  acquiescence  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  in  the 


SUAREZ. 


85 


views  of  his  brother-saint,  as  a  kindly  subterfuge  on  the  account 
of  Divus  Thomas,  and  that  he  affirms  his  own  view  to  be  that 
which  is  supported  by  the  authority  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church." 

Mivart,  In  his  Lessons  from  Nature,  has  replied 
to  Huxley,  claiming  that  while  Suarez  rejected  Au- 
gustine's view  as  to  the  fact  of  Creation,  he  testifies 
as  to  the  vaHdity  of  the  principles  on  which  the 
doctrine  of  derivative  Creation  reposes."^  Yet  he  is 
not  able  to  controvert  Huxley's  exposition  of  Sua- 
rez' real  opinions  ;  he  does  controvert  Huxley's  state- 
ment that  Suarez  is  a  leading  authority,  and  quotes 
Cardinal  Norris  and  others  upon  the  views  of  Au- 
gustine, Albertus  Magnus,  and  Thomas  Aquinas,  to 
the  effect  that  these  teachers  are  still  the  standards 
upon  these  questions. 

The  truth  is  that  all  classes  of  theolosfians  de- 
parted  from  the  original  philosophical  and  scientific 
standards  of  some  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church, 
and  that  Special  Creation  became  the  universal 
teaching  from  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  to  the 
middle  of  the  nineteenth  centuries.  It  is  the  recent 
establishment  of  Evolution  which  has  led  to  the 
revival  of  Augustine's  broad  and  true  interpretation, 
and  there  is  no  doubt  that  Mivart's  contention  so 
far  as  the  older  writers  are  concerned  is  correct. 

"^  Lessons  from  Nature.     London,  1876.     Page  447. 


86       theologians  and  natural  philosophers. 

The  Awakening  of  Science. 

Before  speaking  of  the  philosophers  who  now 
became  the  custodians  of  the  Evolution  idea  and 
of  the  speculative  writers  of  the  sixteenth  and 
seventeenth  centuries,  let  us  glance  for  a  moment 
at  the  general  advance  of  knowledge. 

Universities  in  Europe  were  founded  at  the 
beginning  of  the  twelfth  century,  following  those 
established  by  the  Arabs ;  Oxford  was  founded  at 
the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century.  During  a 
long  period  all  naturalists  were  simply  compilers. 
Among  these  compilers  were  Clusius,  Rondelet, 
Belon ;  finally  we  find  Conrad  Gesner  (1516-1565) 
writing  a  complete  bibliography  of  Zoology,  and 
leading  the  naturalists  of  the  sixteenth  century. 
About  this  time  Cesalpin  (15 19-1603)  wrote  of 
Vegetable  Anatomy,  and  there  sprang  up  in  Padua 
the  School  of  Anatomy  of  Vesalius  (15 14-1564), 
Fallopius,  and  his  pupil  Fabricius,  who  in  turn 
taught  the  immortal  Harvey.  In  161 9  Harvey 
discovered  the  circulation  of  the  blood  and  founded 
Embryology.  The  systematic  classification  of  ani- 
mals and  plants  then  arose  as  a  distinct  branch  in 
the  writings  of  Ray  (i  628-1 704),  Tournefort,  and 
Magnol.  Ray  was  the  precursor  of  Linnaeus.  In 
the  second  half  of  the  seventeenth  century  and 
beginning  of  the  eighteenth,  the  study  of  the 
smaller  organisms  began  with  Leeuwenhoek,  Mai-, 
pighi,  and  Swammerdam.    "  We  owe  to  this  period," 


NATURAL  PHILOSOPHERS.  S; 

says  St.  Hilaire,  "the  foundation  of  Microscopy; 
Anatomy  enriched  and  joined  to  Physiology ;  Com- 
parative Anatomy  studied  with  care  ;  Classification 
placed  on  a  rational  and  systematic  basis."  It  was 
these  sciences  and  especially  the  rise  of  clearer  ideas 
on  the  nature  of  species,  which  first  gave  specu- 
lation upon  Evolution  its  modern  trend,  bringing 
up  the  origin  and  the  mutability  of  species  as  two 
^reat  central  questions. 

During  these  two  progressive  centuries  there 
were  three  classes  of  writers  who  contributed  more 
or  less  directly  to  the  foundations  of  modern  Evo- 
lution, before  its  open  exposition  by  Buffon.  First, 
the  Naturalists,  among  whom  few  speculative 
questions  were  in  vogue,  were  nevertheless  really 
building  up  the  future  materials  of  thought.  Second, 
the  Speculative  Evolutionists,  who  gave  a  free 
rein  to  thoroughly  unsound  ideas  upon  the  origin 
of  species  and  preserved  many  of  the  early  Greek 
notions.  Finally,  there  were  the  great  Natural 
Philosophers,  such  as  Bacon,  Descartes,  Leibnitz, 
Hume,  ending  with  the  later  German  school,  Kant, 
Lessing,   Herder,  and  Schelling. 

It  is  a  very  striking  fact,  that  the  basis  of  our 
modern  methods  of  studying  the  Evolution  prob- 
lem was  established  not  by  the  early  naturalists 
nor  by  the  speculative  writers,  but  by  the  Philos- 
ophers. They  alone  were  upon  the  main  track  of 
modern  thought.  It  is  evident  that  they  were 
groping  in  the  dark  for  a  working  theory  of   the 


88  THEOLOGIANS  AND  NATURAL  PHILOSOPHERS. 

Evolution  of  life,  and  it  is  remarkable  that  they 
clearly  perceived  from  the  outset  that  the  point 
to  which  observation  should  be  directed  was  not 
the  past  but  the  present  mutability  of  species,  and 
further,  that  this  mutability  was  simply  the  varia- 
tion of  individuals  on  an  extended  scale.  Thus 
Variation  w^as  brought  into  prominence  as  the 
point  to  which  observation  should  be  directed. 

This  is  one  of  the  contributions  of  the  Philos- 
ophers to  the  history  of  the  Evolution  theory.  ItJ 
seems  to  have  sprung  up  afresh  out  of  the  advances 
in  Biology  of  the  previous  century,  for  it  was  some- 
thino^  which  is  not  found  amono^  the  Greeks.  It 
was  Bacon  who  pointed  out  the  evidence  for  Vari- 
ation in  animals  and  plants,  and  the  bearing  of  this 
upon  the  production  of  new  species  and  upon  the 
gradations  of  life.  Leibnitz  took  a  second  step 
in  indicating  that  the  Evolution  of  life  was  a 
necessary  part  of  a  system  of  cosmic  philosophy,! 
and  although  wholly  at  sea  in  his  theory  of  Evo-J 
lution,  he  added  to  the  evidence  for  it  by  giving 
examples  of  gradations  of  character  between  living 
and  extinct  forms,  as  proofs  of  the  universal  grada- 
tion or  connection  between  species.  Thus,  among 
these  philosophers  we  find  pointed  out  the  gra- 
dations of  type,  the  facts  of  variation,  and  the 
bearing  of  these  facts  upon  the  production  of  new 
species,  also  the  analogy  between  artificial  selection 
practised  by  man  in  producing  new  forms  and  the 
production  of  new  forms  in  Nature. 


NATURAL   PHILOSOPHERS.  89 

These  were  original  departures,  in  which  these 
writers  were  thoroughly  logical  and  sound,  and 
were  laying  foundations  for  those  observations 
which  finally  led  to  the  establishment  of  the  Evo- 
lution theory.  Yet  it  must  not  be  inferred  that 
the  Evolution  of  life  was  a  very  prominent  ele- 
ment in  their  philosophy. 

In  the  larger  aspect  of  their  teaching,  namely, 
in  the  broad  question  of  Evolution  itself  as  the 
law  of  the  Universe,  they  all  found  their  inspira- 
tion in  Greek  literature.  Bacon  did  not  put  forth 
a  general  Evolution  system;  Descartes  and  Leib- 
nitz, who  were  the  first  to  do  so,  drew  from  Greek 
poetry  and  philosophy,  and  the  same  is  true  of 
all  the  later  philosophers.  Kant  and  the  later 
German  philosophers  drew  not  only  from  these 
sources,  but  from  suggestions  found  in  contempo- 
rary science,  from  Linnaeus  and  especially  from 
Buffon.  It  is  very  probable  also  that  careful  search 
among  the  earlier  naturalists  would  reveal  an  antici- 
pation of  some  of  the  problems  which  are  set  forth 
in  Bacon  and  Leibnitz. 

Their  first  great  gift,  as  we  have  said,  was  in 
establishing  the  right  trend  to  observation  ;  their 
second  o:ift  was  the  outcome  of  their  battle  for  the 
principle  of  natural  causation.  From  Bacon  to 
Kant,  who,  it  is  true,  wavered  in  advocating  this 
principle,  this  was  a  theme  of  the  first  rank ;  that  is, 
the  operation  of  natural  causes  in  the  world  rather 
than   of  the  constant  interference  of  a  Creator  in 


90  THEOLOGIANS  AND  NATURAL  PHILOSOPHERS. 

his  works.  In  the  doubts  which  were  felt  as  to 
natural  causation,  we  see  proofs  of  the  close  rela- 
tions between  the  Church,  the  State,  and  Science, 
and  that  this  principle,  as  well  as  that  of  Evolu- 
tion, was  under  the  ban  of  unorthodoxy. 

The  Natural  Philosophers. 

Francis  Bacon  (i 561-1626)  thought  lightly  of 
Greek  science.  He  strongly  condemned  the  rever- 
ence for  it  as  a  bar  to  progress,  and  in  his  sweeping 
criticisms  was  far  too  severe,  especially  upon  Aris- 
totle, in  whom  he  undoubtedly  found  his  famous 
principles  of  induction. 

"  Nor,"  he  says,  "  must  we  omit  the  opinion  or,  rather,  proph- 
ecy of  an  Egyptian  priest  in  regard  to  the  Greeks,  that  they 
would  forever  remain  children  without  any  antiquity  of  knowledge, 
or  knowledge  of  antiquity ;  for  they  certainly  have  this  in  com- 
mon with  children,  that  they  are  prone  to  talking  and  incapable 
of  generation,  their  wisdom  being  loquacious  and  unproductive  of 
effects.  Hence  the  external  signs  derived  from  the  origin  and 
birthplace  of  our  philosophy  are  not  favourable." 

He  failed  to  appreciate  Greek  suggestiveness, 
and  little  foresaw  the  influence  it  was  destined  to 
exert  in  framing  modern  Evolution.  If  we  are  to 
judge  Bacon  himself  by  his  maxims  and  aphorisms, 
no  place  would  be  too  high  for  him ;  but  judging 
him  by  his  actual  researches  and  practices,  and 
carefully  estimating  his  real  influence  upon  poster- 
ity, we  must  place  him  below  Harvey,  whose  brill- 


BACON.  QI 

iant  application  of  the  inductive  method  in  science 
he  is  said  to  have  ignored. 

In  the  Advajicejnent  of  Learning  (Book  V.)  lie 
points  out  the  art  of  indication.  "  For  indication 
proceeds  (i)  from  experiment  to  experiment,  or 
(2)  from  experiment  to  axioms,  which  may  again 
point  out  new  experiments.  The  former  we  call 
learned  experience,  and  the  latter  the  interpretation 
of  Nature,  Novum  Organum,  or  new  machine  of 
mind."  This  '  art '  substantially  implies  the  use  of 
the  working  hypothesis.  That  Bacon,  as  early  as 
1620,  fully  grasped  the  wealth  of  knowledge,  which 
could  be  gained  from  observation,  experiment,  and 
induction,  is  shown  repeatedly  in  the  course  of  his 
works.  The  following  passages  are  cited  because 
they  bear  especially  upon  the  question  of  species, 
and  show  that  Bacon  was  one  of  the  first,  if  not  the 
first,  to  raise  the  problem  of  the  mutability  of  spe- 
cies as  possibly  a  result  of  the  accumulation  of 
variations.  He  speaks,  in  the  first  place,  of  varia- 
tions of  an  extreme  kind  [Novum  Organum,  Book 
11.,  Section  29). 

"In  the  eighth  rank  of  prerogative  instances,  we  will  place 
deviating  instances,  such  as  the  errors  of  Nature  or  strange  and 
monstrous  objects,  in  which  Nature  deviates  and  turns  from  her 
ordinary  course.  For  the  errors  of  Nature  differ  from  singular 
instances,  inasmuch  as  the  latter  are  the  miracles  of  species,  the 
former  of  the  individuals.  Their  use  is  much  the  same,  for  they 
rectify  the  understanding  in  opposition  to  habit,  and  reveal  com- 
mon forms.  For  with  regard  to  these,  also,  we  must  not  desist 
from   inquiry  till    we   discern  the   cause  of   the  deviation;    the 


92  THEOLOGIANS  AND  NATURAL  PHILOSOPHERS. 

cause  does  not,  however,  in  such  cases  rise  to  a  regular  form,  but 
only  in  the  latent  process  towards  such  a  form,  for  he  who  is  ac- 
quainted with  the  paths  of  Nature  will  more  readily  observe  their 
deviations,  and  vice  versa,  he  who  has  learnt  her  deviations  will  be 
able  more  accurately  to  describe  her  paths." 

Having  thus  spoken  of  deviations  or  variations, 
and  of  the  necessity  of  understanding  the  normal 
type  in  order  to  detect  the  variation,  also  of  the  de- 
sirability of  studying  the  cause  of  the  variation, 
Bacon  proceeds  to  point  out  that  it  is  possible  for 
man  to  produce  variations  experimentally,  and  shows 
that  living  objects  are  well  adapted  to  experimental 
work : — 

"  They  differ  again  from  singular  instances,  by  being  much  more 
apt  for  practice  and  the  operative  branch.  For  it  would  be  very 
difficult  to  generate  new  species,  but  less  so  to  vary  known  species, 
and  thus  produce  many  rare  and  unusual  results.  The  passage 
from  the  miracles  of  Nature  to  those  of  Art  is  easy ;  for  if  Nature 
be  once  seized  in  her  variations  and  the  cause  be  manifest,  it  will 
be  easy  to  lead  her  by  Art  to  such  variation  as  she  was  first  led 
to  by  chance  ;  and  not  only  to  that,  but  others,  since  deviations 
on  the  one  side  lead  and  open  the  way  to  others  in  every  direction." 

In  the  above  passage  Bacon  points  out  that  in  arti- 
ficial selection  we  take  advantage  of  the  chance  varia- 
tions of  Nature,  and  accumulate  them.  In  the  next 
passage  he  points  out  the  presence  of  transitional 
fornis  in  Nature  between  two  types  (Section  30.) : 

"  In  the  ninth  rank  of  prerogative  instances  we  will  place  bor- 
dering instances,  which  we  are  also  wont  to  term  participants.  They 
are  such  as  exhibit  those  species  of  bodies  which  appear  to  be 
composed  of  two  species,  or  to  be  the  rudiments  between  one  and 


BACON. 


93 


the  other.  They  may  well  be  classed  with  the  singular  or  hetero- 
dite  instances  ;  for  in  the  whole  system  of  things,  they  are  rare  and 
extraordinary.  Yet  from  their  dignity  they  must  be  treated  of 
and  classed  separately,  for  they  point  out  admirably  the  order  and 
constitution  of  things,  and  suggest  the  causes  of  the  number  and 
quality  of  the  more  common  species  in  the  Universe,  leading  the 
understanding  from  that  which  is,  to  that  which  is  possible.  We 
have  examples  of  them  in  Moss,  which  is  something  between  pu- 
trescence and  a  plant ;  in  some  Comets,  which  hold  a  place  between 
stars  and  ignited  meteors ;  in  Flying  Fishes,  between  fishes  and 
birds ;  and  in  Bats,  between  birds  and  quadrupeds." 

Bacon  also  observed  "  that  plants  sometimes  de- 
generate to  the  point  of  changing  into  other  plants," 
but  so  far  as  I  know  gave  no  grounds  of  support 
for  this  opinion.  These  quotations  show  that  even 
at  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century,  the 
mutability  of  species  was  a  live  question,  which  was 
being  more  or  less  discussed,  and  that  mutability 
was  seen  in  its  modern  bearings  upon*  Evolution. 

Bacon  went  further,  and  in  his  Nova  Atlantis  we 
find  he  projects  the  establishment  of  a  Scientific 
Institution,  to  be  devoted  to  the  progress  of  the 
natural  sciences,  for  experiments  upon  the  meta- 
morphoses of  organs  and  observations  upon  what 
causes  species  to  vary ;  for  researches  which  would 
reveal  the  manner  in  which  species  had  multiplied 
and  become  diversified  in  a  state  of  Nature.  After 
three  centuries  this  project  is  materializing  so  that 
one  of  our  new  experimental  stations  might  well 
be  called  the  Baconian  Institute  of  Experimental 
Evolution. 


94  THEOLOGIANS  AND  NATURAL   PHILOSOPHERS. 

The  central  idea  of  the  grand  Evolution  of  life  is  | 
frequently  implied  rather  than  clearly  expressed  in  : 
Bacon's  writings.  He  differed  from  Descartes  and 
later  philosophers  in  proposing  the  method  by 
which  the  natural  system  of  the  Universe  could  be 
ascertained,  rather  than  in  speculating  upon  the 
system  itself. 

Rene  Descartes  (i 596-1650)  threw  off  the  yoke 
of  Scholasticism  in  France  as  Bacon  had  in  Enof- 
land.  His  thought  took  an  entirely  different  turn, 
rather  the  philosophical  than  the  scientific.  In  his 
Principes  de  la  Philosophie,  published  in  1637,  he 
cautiously  advanced  his  belief  that  the  physical 
universe  is  a  mechanism,  and  that  as  such  it  is 
explicable  upon  physical  principles.  Buffon  cred- 
its him  with  taking  here  the  most  daring  step  1 
possible  in  philosophy,  in  attempting  to  explain  all  \ 
things  upon  principles  of  natural  law.  There  is  \ 
no  doubt  that  at  the  time  Descartes  took  this  step, 
it  required  even  greater  moral  courage  than  his, 
to  break  away  from  the  prevailing  dogmas  as  to 
Special  Creation.  In  a  passage  upon  Creation, 
which  Huxley  aptly  terms  a  singular  exhibition  of 
force  and  weakness,  Descartes  wavers  between  his 
conviction  as  to  the  true  order  of  things,  and  the 
prevailing  teaching : 

He  marks  the  difference  between  the  natural  order  of  gradual 
development  and  the  unnatural  doctrine  of  sudden  creation,  which 
at  the  time  had  become  the  prevailing  and  prescribed  teaching. 
Further,  he  intimates  that  all  things  are  ordered  by  natural  laws  : 


LEIBNITZ.  QC 

"All  the  same,  if  we  can  imagine  a  few  intelligible  and  simple 
principles  upon  which  the  stars,  and  earth,  and  all  the  visible 
world  might  have  been  produced  (although  we  well  know  that 
it  has  not  been  produced  in  this  fashion),  we  reach  a  better 
understanding  of  the  nature  of  all  things  than  if  we  describe 
simply  how  things  now  are,  or  how  we  believe  them  to  have  been, 
created.  Because  I  believe  I  have  discovered  such  principles, 
I  shall  endeavour  to  explain  them." 

Gottfried  Wilhelm  Leibnitz  (i  646-1 71 6),  the 
first  of  the  great  philosophers  of  Germany,  advo- 
cated two  ideas  in  his  writings  which  exerted  a 
great  and  widely  misleading  influence  in  Biology. 
The  first  was  his  doctrine  of  Continuity,  and  the 
second,  his  doctrine  of  Perfectibility  in  the  Monads. 
The  law  of  Perfectibility  is  said  to  have  been  sug- 
gested by  Bruno,  but  as  applied  to  the  animal 
creation  certainly  came  more  or  less  directly  from 
Aristotle.  It  is  surprising  to  find  how  Leibnitz' 
principle  of  Continuity  adapted  itself  to  the  idea 
of  Evolution  of  organic  beings.  In  part  from  obser- 
vations of  his  own,  and  probably  in  part  influenced 
by  Aristotle,  Leibnitz  expressed  the  law  of  Conti- 
nuity as  applied  to  life  as  follows:  "All  natural 
orders  of  beings  present  but  a  single  chain,  in  which 
the  different  classes  of  animals,  like  so  many  rings, 
are  so  closely  united  that  it  is  not  possible  either 
by  observation  or  imagination  to  determine  where 
one  ends  or  begins." 

He  was  very  familiar  both  with  Bacon  and 
Descartes,  and  by  the  former  had  probably  had 
his    attention    called    to    the    matter   of   Variation. 


96  THEOLOGIANS  AND  NATURAL  PHILOSOPHERS. 

Huxley  quotes  from  the  ProtogcBa  (XXVI.)  a  pas- 
sage which  proves  that  Leibnitz  also  had  his  own 
thoughts  and  observations  upon  the  mutability  of 
species.  He  is  speaking  of  the  fossil  Ammonites 
related  to  the  living  Nautilus,  and,  after  noting  the 
infinite  variations  in  their  shells,  and  the  gradations 
which  are  presented  among  these  forms,  says :  — 

"  Some  are  surprised  that  there  are  to  be  seen  everywhere  in 
rocks  such  objects  as  one  might  seek  for  in  vain  elsewhere  in  the 
known  world,  or  certainly,  at  least,  in  his  own  neighbourhood. 
Such  are  the  horns  of  Amnion  (Ammonites),  which  are  reckoned 
a  kind  of  Nautilus,  although  they  are  said  to  differ  always  both  in 
form  and  size,  sometimes  indeed  being  found  a  foot  in  diameter, 
from  all  those  animal  natures  which  the  sea  exhibits.  Yet  who 
has  thoroughly  searched  those  hidden  recesses  or  subterranean 
depths?  And  how  many  animals  hitherto  unknown  to  us  has 
a  new  world  to  offer?  Indeed  it  is  credible  that  by  means  of 
such  great  changes  (of  habitat)  even  the  species  of  animals  are 
often  changed." 

His  law  of  Continuity  was  in  another  passage 
expressed  as  follows  —  showing  conclusively  that  he 
held  very  positive  views  as  to  the  evolution  of  life :  — 

"All  advances  by  degrees  in  Nature,  and  nothing  by  leaps, 
and  this  law  as  apphed  to  each,  is  part  of  my  doctrine  of  Con- 
tinuity. Although  there  may  exist  in  some  other  world  species 
intermediate  between  Man  and  the  Apes,  Nature  has  thought  it 
best  to  remove  them  from  us,  in  order  to  establish  our  superiority 
beyond  question.  I  speak  of  intermediate  species,  and  by  no 
means  limit  myself  to  those  leading  to  Man.  I  strongly  approve 
of  the  research  for  analogies ;  plants,  insects,  and  Comparative 
Anatomy  will  increase  these  analogies,  especially  when  we  are 
able  to  take  advantage  of  the  microscope  more  than  at  present." 


SPINOZA. 


97 


Leibnitz'  main  teachings,  as  in  part  a  revival 
of  Aristotle's,  certainly  had  an  entirely  different 
trend  from  those  of  Bacon  and  Descartes.  He 
stimulated  the  speculations  of  Diderot,  Maupertuis, 
Bonnet,  Robinet,  and  others,  of  the  speculative 
writers  ;  in  short,  he  founded  a  'school '  with  his  Con- 
tinuity doctrines.  On  the  other  hand,  like  Bacon, 
he  appears,  in  such  passages  as  those  quoted  above, 
to  have  especially  directed  research  to  those  natural 
gradations  between  species  which  have  become  the 
pillars  of  Evolution. 

Spinoza  (i 632-1 677)  took  a  similar  but  firmer 
ground  in  regard  to  natural  causation :  "  The 
natural  laws  and  principles  by  which  all  things  are 
made  and  some  forms  are  changed  into  others, 
are  everywhere  and  through  all  time  the  same." 
To  Pascal  (162 3-1 662)  was  attributed  by  Geoffrey 
St.  Hilaire  a  thoroughly  evolutionistic  view  as  to 
the  origin  of  animals  and  plants  ;  yet  diligent  search 
by  other  authors  has  failed  to  locate  this  in  any 
of  his  writings.  In  the  close  of  his  treatise  upon 
Optics,  Newton  (1642-1727)  pointed  out  the  uni- 
formity of  structure  which  pervades  all  animal 
types.  Hume  (1711-1776)  also  concluded  that  the 
world  mieht  have  been  orenerated  rather  than  created 
by  the  activity  of  its  own  inherent  principles,  and 
Leslie  Stephens  points  out  that  he  also  considered 
the  '  survival  of  the  fittest '  principle. 

In  those  days  of  few  printed  books  and  concen- 
trated thoucrht,  such  scattered  suggestions  as  these 


H 


98  THEOLOGIANS  AND  NATURAL  PHILOSOPHERS. 

generated  into  opinions  and  theories.  They  are 
the  minor  features  of  the  environment  of  the  Evolu- 
tion idea.  The  final  and  the  fullest  expression  of 
Evolution  in  philosophical  literature  is  found  in 
Kant. 

Emmanuel  Kant  (i  724-1804)  was  born  sixteen 
years  after  Buffon  and  Linn^us,  and  therefore 
thought  and  wrote  after  natural  history  had  made 
very  great  advances.  The  ideas  of  Selection,  Adap- 
tation, Environment,  and  Inheritance,  which  are 
attributed  to  him  as  original  by  Haeckel,  are  also 
found  in  the  works  of  Buffon.  Buffon's  most  ex- 
treme views  were  expressed  between  1 760-70,  while 
Kant's  extreme  views  were  expressed  between  1757 
and  1771. 

We  owe  to  Schultze  a  very  full  exposition  of  all 
the  passages  in  the  writings  of  the  great  Konigsberg 
philosopher  which  bear  upon  tlie  Evolution  theory. 
In  his  earlier  years  (1755),  Kant  published  a  work 
entitled  The  General  History  of  Nature  and  Theory 
of  the  Heavens,  embracing  an  attempt  to  reconcile 
Newton  and  Leibnitz,  or  Nature  from  the  mechan- 
ical and  teleological  standpoints.  At  this  time  he 
was  attracted  by  the  mechanism  of  Lucretius. 
Haeckel  points  out,  that  in  this  work  Kant  took  a 
very  advanced  position  as  to  the  domain  of  natural 
causation,  or,  as  Haeckel  terms  it,  'mechanism  in 
the  domain  of  life,'  while  in  his  later  work  (1790), 
his  criticism  of  The  Teleological  Faculty  of  Jtidg- 
inent^  he  took  a  much  more  conservative  position. 


KANT.  99 

In  the  former,  he  considers  all  Nature  under  the 
domain  of  natural  causes,  while  in  the  latter,  he 
divides  Nature  into  the  'inorganic'  in  which  nat- 
ural causes  prevail,  and  the  'organic'  in  which  the 
active  teleological  principle  prevails.  There  was, 
therefore,  in  Kant's  later  work  a  cleft  between 
primeval  matter  and  the  domain  of  life ;  for  in  tlie 
latter  he  assumed  the  presence  of  final  causes  act- 
ing for  definite  ends.     As  Haeckel  says  :  — 

"After  having  quite  correctly  maintained  the  origin  of  organic 
forms  out  of  raw  matter  by  mechanical  laws  (in  the  manner  of 
crystallization),  as  well  as  a  gradual  development  of  the  different 
species  by  descent  from  one  common  original  parent,  Kant  adds, 
'but  he,  the  archaeologist  of  Nature,  that  is  the  paleontologist, 
must  for  this  end  ascribe  to  the  common  mother,  an  organization 
ordained  purposely  with  a  view  to  the  needs  of  all  her  offspring, 
otherwise  the  possibility  of  suitabihty  of  form  in  the  products  of 
the  animal  and  vegetable  kingdoms  cannot  be  conceived  at  all.'  " 

Of  course  we  cannot  here  follow  out  all  the  rea- 
sons for  Kant's  change  of  view  from  his  earlier  to 
his  later  years  ;  we  simply  see  that  he  was  staggered 
by  the  impossibility  of  human  investigation  ever 
reaching  an  explanation  of  the  laws  which  have 
governed  the  derivation  of  all  organic  beings,  from 
polyps  to  men  ;  he  declared  that  this  doctrine  (of 
Evolution)  was  compatible  with  the  mechanical 
conception  of  Nature,  although  no  natural  science 
can  attain  it;  it  would  therefore  remain  a  daring 
flight  of  reason.  In  a  striking  passage  upon  the 
limits  of  our  knowledge,  he  says :  — 


100       THEOLOGIANS  AND  NATURAL  PHILOSOPHERS. 

"  It  is  quite  certain  that  we  cannot  become  sufficiently  acquainted 
with  organized  creatures  and  their  hidden  potentiaUties  by  aid  of 
purely  mechanical  natural  principles,  much  less  can  we  explain 
them  ;  and  this  is  so  certain,  that  we  may  boldly  assert  that  it  is 
absurd  for  man  even  to  conceive  such  an  idea,  or  to  hope  that  | 
a  Newton  may  one  day  arise  even  to  make  the  production  of  a  1 
blade  of  grass  comprehensible,  according  to  natural  laws  ordained 
by  no  intention;  such  an  insight  we  must  absolutely  deny  to 
man." 

As  Haeckel  observes,  Darwin  rose  up  as  Kant's 
Newton ;  for  he  offered  an  explanation  of  the  pro- 
duction and  of  the  development  of  those  very 
structures  and  adaptations  in  Nature,  which  re- 
mained wholly  unexplained  until  1858.  Haeckel 
expresses  evident  disappointment  at  Kant's  posi- 
tion ;  yet  this  position  may  be  regarded  as  rais- 
ing Kant  higher  in  the  scale  of  science,  if  not  of 
philosophy.  If  he  could  not  even  conceive  of  any 
natural  law  whereby  these  beautiful  adaptations  of 
Nature  could  be  explained,  he  was  not  justified  in 
making  a  bold  assumption  of  the  existence  of  such 
a  law.  The  feeling  that  Newton  and  other  physi- 
cal philosophers  had  supplied  the  inorganic  world 
with  its  regulating  principles  would  have  made  it 
logical  for  Kant,  like  Descartes,  to  carry  his  reason- 
ing a  step  further  into  the  world  of  life.  But  his 
logic  and  philosophy  w^ere  held  back  by  his  scien- 
tific instinct  for  evidence,  and  evidence  was  then 
wholly  lacking ;  for  even  the  explanation  offered  by 
Lamarck  was  not  available. 

Kant  was  undoubtedly  familiar  with  the  writings 


KANT.  10 1 

of  Buffon  and  Maupertuis ;  he  alludes  to  them  both  ; 
in  his  second  work,  prepared  in  1757,  ^^^-^^  not  pub- 
lished until  much  later,  it  is  evident  that  his  stand- 
point towards  Evolution  was  very  similar  to  that  of 
Buffon  in  what  we  call  his  '  middle  period.'  Later, 
in  1763,  he  parallels  Buffon  in  tracing  back  all  the 
higher  forms  of  life  to  simpler  elementary  forms. 
He  traces  the  changes  produced  in  man  by  migra- 
tion, differences  of  climate  and  the  like,  and  deduces 
the  law  of  degeneration  from  the  originally  created 
types  of  species.  In  1771  he  also  brings  man  into 
the  ranks  of  Nature,  and  alludes  to  his  former 
quadrupedal  attitude,  here  agreeing  with  Buffon  and 
Helvetius.  In  his  study  upon  the  races  of  man  we 
also  find  that  he  expresses  the  principle  of  Survival 
of  the  Fittest,  as  applied  to  groups  of  organisms, 
very  much  in  the  form  in  which  it  had  been  stated 
by  Buffon.  In  this  connection  he  quotes  Maupertuis. 
He  also  sees  the  force  of  accidental  variation  and 
of  artificial  selection  in  the  production  of  certain 
external  colours. 

Kant's  comprehensive  view  of  Evolution,  and  his 
hesitation  as  to  the  problem  of  causation,  is  all 
summed  up  in  the  following  remarkable  passage 
(i  790),  quoted  by  Schultze  :  — 

"It  is  desirable  to  examine  the  great  domain  of  organized 
beings  bv  means  of  a  methodical  comparative  anatomy,  in  onler 
to  discover  whether  we  may  not  find  in  them  something  resem- 
bling a  system,  and  that  too  in  connection  with  their  mode  of  gen- 
eration, so  that  we  may  not  be  compelled  to  stop  short  with  a  mere 


I02       THEOLOGIANS  AND  NATURAL  PHILOSOPHERS. 

consideration  of  forms  as  they  are  —  which  gives  us  no  insight  into 
their  generation — and  need  not  despair  of  gaining  a  full  insight 
into  this  department  of  Nature.  The  agreement  of  so  many  kinds 
of  animals  in  a  certain  common  plan  of  structure,  which  seems  to 
be  visible  not  only  in  their  skeletons,  but  also  in  the  arrangement 
of  the  other  parts  —  so  that  a  wonderfully  simple  typical  form,  by 
the  shortening  and  lengthening  of  some  parts,  and  by  the  suppres- 
sion and  development  of  others,  might  be  able  to  produce  an 
immense  variety  of  species  —  gives  us  a  ray  of  hope,  though 
feeble,  that  here  perhaps  some  results  may  be  obtained,  by  the 
application  of  the  principle  of  the  mechanism  of  Nature,  without 
which,  in  fact,  no  science  can  exist.  This  analogy  of  forms  (in 
so  far  as  they  seem  to  have  been  produced  in  accordance  with  a 
common  prototype,  notwithstanding  their  great  variety)  strengthens 
the  supposition  that  they  have  an  actual  blood-relationship,  due  to 
derivation  from  a  common  parent ;  a  supposition  which  is  arrived 
at  by  observation  of  the  graduated  approximation  of  one  class  of 
animals  to  another,  beginning  with  the  one  in  which  the  principle 
of  purposiveness  seems  to  be  most  conspicuous,  namely  man,  and 
extending  down  to  the  polyps,  and  from  these  even  down  to  mosses 
and  lichens,  and  arriving  finally  at  raw  matter,  the  lowest  stage  of 
Nature  observable  by  us.  From  this  raw  matter  and  its  forces,  the 
whole  apparatus  of  Nature  seems  to  have  been  derived  according 
to  mechanical  laws  (such  as  those  which  resulted  in  the  produc- 
tion of  crystals)  ;  yet  this  apparatus,  as  seen  in  organic  beings,  is 
so  incomprehensible  to  us,  that  we  feel  ourselves  compelled  to 
conceive  for  it  a  different  principle.  But  it  would  seem  that  the 
archaeologist  of  Nature  is  at  liberty  to  regard  the  great  Fainily  of 
creatures  (for  as  a  Family  we  must  conceive  it,  if  the  above-men- 
tioned continuous  and  connected  relationship  has  a  real  founda- 
tion) as  having  sprung  from  the  immediate  results  of  her  earliest 
revolutions,  judging  from  all  the  laws  of  their  mechanisms  known 
to  or  conjectured  by  him." 

What  a  connecting  link  ^etween   all   past    and 
future  thougKnies  in  this  great  passage !     We  can 


HERDER.  103 

trace  the  influence  of  every  earlier  philosopher  from 
Aristotle  down,  and  recognize  the  problems  which 
have  faced  every  later  one. 

Lessing's  (i  729-1 781)  views  of  Cosmology  in- 
cluded the  doctrine  of  a  law  of  development  which 
embraced  all  Nature,  and  led  him  also  to  the  idea 
of  a  gradated  scale  of  organisms. 

JoHANN  Gottfried  Herder  (i  744-1803)  was  a 
student  of  Kant  in  Konigsberg  between  1762  and 
1764.  We  have  seen  that  Kant's  earliest  contribu- 
tion to  the  Evolution  theory  was  published  in  1755, 
so  that  it  is  probable  that  Herder  came  under  the 
influence  of  Kant's  earlier  views.  As  shown  bv 
Barenbach,  who  has  made  a  special  study  of  this 
side  of  his  philosophy  in  his  Herder  ah  Vorg'dngcr 
Darwms.  Herder  was  less  cautious  than  his 
master,  and  appears  almost  as  a  literal  prophet  of 
the  modern  natural  philosophy.  In  a  general  way 
he  upholds  the  doctrine  of  the  transformation  of 
the  lower  and  higher  forms  of  life,  of  a  continuous 
transformation  from  lower  to  higher  types,  and  of 
the  law  of  Perfectibility.  "  Every  combination  of 
force  and  form,"  he  says,  "is  neither  stability  nor 
retrogression,  but  progress.  Take  off  the  outer 
shell  and  there  is  no  death  in  Nature.  Every  dis- 
turbance marks  the  transfer  to  a  higher  tyj^e."  In 
his  Ideeii  zur  Geschichte  der  Menschheit,  published  in 
Tubingen  in  1806,  we  find  the  following  passage:  — 

"A  certain  unity  of  type  pervades  all  the  different  forms  of 
life,  like  a  main  type  which  can  display  the  widest  variations. 


104       THEOLOGIANS  AND  NATURAL  PHILOSOPHERS. 

Similarities  of  external  and,  still  more,  of  internal,  structure  per- 
vade all  the  land  animals  and  are  repeated  in  man.  The  am- 
phibia, birds,  fishes,  insects,  water  animals,  depart  in  widening 
degrees  from  this  main  type,  which  is  lost  in  the  plant  and  inor- 
ganic creation.  Our  vision  reaches  no  further,  but  all  these  trans- 
fers render  it  not  improbable  that  in  the  series  of  extinct  forms 
the  same  type,  in  a  ruder  and  simpler  form,  may  have  prevailed. 
We  can,  therefore,  assume  that,  according  to  their  nearness  to 
man,  all  beings  have  their  greater  or  less  likeness  to  him,  and  that 
the  nature  of  all  Hfe  seems  to  conform  to  a  main  single  plasticity 
of  organization." 

We  see  here  that  Herder  clearly  formulated  the 
doctrine  of  unity  of  type,  which  prevailed  among  all 
the  evolutionists  of  the  period  immediately  following. 

Friedrich  Wilhelm  Joseph  Schelling  (1775— 
1854)  at  the  age  of  twenty  published  his  Ideen  zur 
einer  Philosophie  der  Natur.  Here  he  first  unfolded 
his  ideas  of  the  Philosophy  of  Nature,  Kant  having 
spoken  of  the  science  of  Nature.  One  section  of 
his  philosophy  was  followed  and  developed  by  Oken, 
but  Schelling  was  greatly  admired  also  by  Kiel- 
meyer,  and  undoubtedly  exercised  great  influence 
upon  Goethe.  Isidore  St.  Hilaire  pays  him  a  high 
tribute,  and  speaks  at  length  of  the  admiration  felt 
for  Schelling  in  France ;  he  places  him  midway 
between  the  general  philosopher,  typified  by  the 
more  metaphysical  writers,  and  the  philosopher  of 
natural  objects,  such  as  Geoffroy  St.  Hilaire. 
Schelling  independently  arrived  at  the  conclusion 
of  Kielmeyer,  that  all  the  functions  of  life  are  but 
the  diverse  modifications  of  a  single  force. 


SCHELLING. 


105 


We  here  meet  with  a  natural  culmination  of  the 
progress  of  the  Evolution  idea  in  philosophy,  caused 
by  this  departure  from  induction. 

For  Schelling's  method  was  deductive,  and  he 
sought  in  deduction  the  main  sources  of  human 
knowledge.  At  the  point  of  empiricism,  where, 
according  to  Cuvier,  science  ends,  he  held  that  true 
science  begins.  By  this  he  meant,  that  if  tlie 
human  reason  can  question  and  answer  upon  its 
own  existence,  and  upon  its  relations  to  the  Crea- 
tor, it  can  also  answer  upon  all  Creation ;  it  can 
comprehend  and  reconstruct  the  order  of  the  Uni- 
verse. "  To  philosophize  upon  Nature,  it  is  to 
create  Nature."  Because  the  hypothesis  springs 
from  the  mind,  and  is  merely  tested  by  experiment, 
he  places  the  direct  fruits  of  hypothesis  or  deductive 
science  above  inductive  science.  This  might  be 
termed  a  reversion  to  Greek  natural  philosophy 
or  methods  of  thought  brilliant  but  unproductive 
of  fixed  results. 


IV. 


THE    EVOLUTIONISTS   OF   THE  EIGH- 
TEENTH   CENTURY. 

Die  Idee  der  Metamorphose  ist  eine  hochst  ehrwiirdige,  aber  zugleich  hochst 
gefahrliche  Gabe  von  oben.  Die  fiihrt  ins  Formlose,  zerstort  das  Wissen,  lost  es 
auf.  — Goethe. 

Beside  the  philosophers  between  Bacon  and  Kant 
we  distinguish  two  other  classes  of  evolutionists 
during  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth  and  the 
whole  of  the  eighteenth  century.  These  are,  first, 
the  speculative  writers  from  Duret  to  Oken,  partly 
philosophers,  partly  naturalists  and  of  other  pro- 
fessions, who  resuscitated  some  of  the  crude,  as 
well  as  some  of  the  valuable  scientific  hypotheses  of 
the  Greeks  ;  and  second,  the  great  naturalists  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  who,  with  the  philosophers,  laid 
the  real  foundations  of  the  modern  Evolution  idea. 

The  Speculative  Evolutionists. 

The  lists  of  speculative  writers  are  not  yet  com- 
plete. Among  the  curiosities  of  Evolution  litera- 
ture are  included  the  works  of  Duret,  the  mayor  of 
a  town  in  France,  also  of  Kircher  and  Bonnami, 
two  priests.  Of  real  interest  are  the  speculations 
of  Maupertuis,  a  mathematician  and  astronomer ;  of 
Diderot,  the  political  writer ;  of  Bonnet,  the  eminent 
naturalist;  of  De  Maillet,  French  consul  at  Leghorn; 

1 06 


SPECULATIVE  EVOLUTIONISTS.  107 

of  Robinet,  one  of  the  popular  scientists  of  his  time; 
and  finally  of  Oken,  professor  of  natural  history  in 
the  University  of  Zurich  during  the  first  third  of 
the  present  century.  Some  surprise  may  be  felt  at 
my  placing  Oken  in  this  group,  for  his  Physio- Phi- 
losophies and  his  '  Ur-Schleiin  Theorie,'  are  considered 
by  some  to  raise  him  high  as  a  prophet  of  Modern 
Evolution. 

Yet  Oken  Is  a  fair  exponent;  in  his  *  sea-foam  ' 
and  ' spontaneous  generation'  vagaries  we  find  him 
drawing  from  such  an  ancient  and  imaginative 
authority  as  Anaximander.  In  fact,  when  we  ana- 
lyze his  contributions  we  find  that  they  actually 
represent  the  last  survivals  of  Greek  Evolution  with 
a  veneer  of  eighteenth-century  progress.  When  we 
read  him  through  and  through  we  see  that  he  is  about 
as  truly  an  anachronism  as  old  Claude  Duret  of 
1609.  . 

This  is  more  or  less  true  of  all  these  speculators. 
They  were  not  actually  in  the  main  Evolution 
movement ;  they  were  either  out  of  date  or  upon  the 
side  tracks  of  thought.  They  can  be  sharply  distin- 
guished from  both  the  naturalists  and  philosophers 
in  the  fact  that  their  speculations  advanced  without 
the  support  of  observation,  and  without  the  least 
deference  to  inductive  canons.  Several  of  them 
were  very  popular  writers,  and  unchecked  specula- 
tion was  so  much  their  characteristic  that  they 
undoubtedly  retarded  the  development  of  the  true 
Evolution  idea  by  drawing  ridicule  upon  all  genu- 


I08       EVOLUTIONISTS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

ine    search    for    a    naturalistic    explanation    of    the 
phenomena  of  life. 

We  find  them  reviving  Greek  ideas  both  in  the 
spontaneous  origin  of  life  in  different  forms  and 
in  metamorphoses  and  transformations,  hardly  less 
sudden  than  those  of  Empedocles.  Another  source 
of  their  authority  is  the  highly  imaginative  natural 
history  literature  of  the  Middle  Ages.  In  all  this 
chaff  there  is  of  course  some  wheat,  as  is  often  the 
case  in  speculation  unhindered  by  observation.  Lines 
of  suggestion  coming  near  to  modern  thought  upon 
heredity  are  found  especially  in  the  essays  of  Mau- 
pertuis,  who  drew  from  Democritus  and  Anaxagoras. 
De  Maillet  outlined  the  theory  of  '  transmission  of 
acquired  characters'  in  a  crude  form  similar  to  that 
of  Empedocles.  Robinet  conceived  Evolution  on 
a  large  scale,  borrowing  a  mistaken  interpretation  of 
Aristotle.  Oken  stated  somewhat  more  distinctly 
than  had  been  done  previously  the  hypothesis  of  the 
cellular  origin  of  life.  As  Bonnet  was  the  contempo- 
rary of  Buffon,  and  Oken  lived  thirty  years  later 
than  Lamarck,  the  study  of  this  group  carries  us 
well  beyond  the  period  in  which  the  sound  founda- 
tions of  Modern   Evolution  were  laid. 

We  are  indebted  to  Ducasse  and  Varigny  for 
pointing  out  some  of  the  quaint  early  biological  lit- 
erature of  the  seventeenth  century.  Claude  Duret 
in  his  Histoire  Admirable  des  Plantes,  published  in 
1609,  is  a  direct  transformationist.  Among  other 
remarkable  tales  he  describes  and  figures  a  tree,  'not. 


MAILLET.  lOQ 

it  is  true,  common  in  France,  but  frequently  observed 
in  Scotland'  (a  country  which  the  Mayor  evidently 
considered  so  remote  that  his  observation  would 
probably  not  be  gainsaid) ;  from  this  tree  leaves  are 
falling;  upon  one  side  they  strike  the  water  and 
slowly  transform  into  fishes,  upon  the  other  they 
strike  land  and  turn  into  birds.  Father  Bonnami 
was  another  writer  of  similar  comedies.  In  the 
latter  part  of  the  century  appeared  the  Muudus 
Subterraneus  of  Father  Kircher  ( Amsterdam, 
1678,  2  vols.) ;  this  is  full  of  '  authentic  observations  ' 
of  the  same  stamp.  The  worthy  priest  describes 
orchids  giving  birth  to  birds  and  even  to  very  small 
men  ;  this  occurs  when  they  touch  the  ground  where 
a  sort  of  fecundation  occurs  by  the  spcrmaticus 
Jiumor  superjluus  kumo  sparstis  —  nbi  cojigressiis 
Jacttis  est, 

Benoit  de  Maillet  ( 1 656-1 738)  did  not  pause 
long  over  the  dry  facts  within  the  reach  of  contem- 
porary natural  science  in  his  famous  Tclliauicd.  In 
his  earlier  years,  before  this  book  was  written,  we 
learn  that  he  was  a  careful  student  of  Geology  and 
Paleontology,  and  that  he  perceived  the  true  nature 
and  oriein  of  fossils.  This  in  itself  entitles  him  to 
considerable  credit,  when  we  remember  that  at  the 
time  there  were  wide  differences  of  opinion  regard- 
ing fossils.  Natural  theology  found  in  them  proofs 
of  the  universal  Deluge,  while  such  an  acute 
thinker  as  Voltaire,  who  scoffed  alternately  at  relig- 
ion   and    science,  claimed    that    the    shells    on  the 


no      EVOLUTIONISTS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

mountain-tops  had  been  thrown  aside  by  pilgrims 
on  their  journeys  to  Rome,  and  that  petrified 
fishes  were  the  remains  of  their  unfinished  repasts. 

It  was  probably  his  readings  among  the  Greeks, 
as  well  as  his  own  paleontological  and  geological 
studies,  which  gave  De  Maillet  his  central  hypoth- 
esis that  all  terrestrial  animals  had  their  orimn  in 
marine  forms  by  direct  descent ;  that  birds  were 
derived  from  flying  fishes,  lions  from  sea-lions,  and 
man  from  riiomme  7narin,  the  husband  of  the  mer- 
maid !  De  Maillet  soberly  collected  all  the  narra- 
tives of  the  mermaid,  which  were  abundant  in  the 
literature  of  that  period,  then  reasoning  that  the 
mermaid  must  have  espoused,  derived  man  from 
the  metamorphosis  of  her  husband. 

These  extravagant  ideas  are  mingled  with  the 
rudiments  of  a  principle.  For  De  Maillet,  in  every 
case,  endeavours  to  explain  this  metamorphosis,  or 
transformation,  by  the  influences  of  environment 
and  habit.  The  aquatic  organism  finds  its  way 
upon  land ;  there  its  new  surroundings  of  air  and 
herbage,  and  its  efforts  to  accommodate  itself,  are 
followed  by  a  series  of  modifications.  In  modern 
terms,  '  it  acquires  new  characters.'  The  rash 
feature  of  De  Maillet's  views  is,  that  he  believes 
these  modifications  take  place  within  the  short 
period  of  a  single  life ;  they  are  then  transmitted 
to  the  descendants,  which  do  not  revert  to  the 
aquatic  form.  Thus,  in  his  account  of  the  origin 
of  birds,  he  describes  flying  fishes  as,  "  driven  out 


MAILLET.  I  I  I 

of  the  water  by  the  ardour  of  the  chase  or  by  pur- 
suit, or  carried  by  the  wind,  they  might  have  fallen 
some  distance  from  the  shore  among  plants,  which, 
while  supplying  them  with  food,  prevented  them 
from  returning  to  the  water.  Here,  under  the  influ- 
ence of  the  air,  their  anterior  fins  with  their  raised 
membranes  transformed  into  wings,  barbulcs,  and 
feathers,  the  skin  became  covered  with  down,  the 
ventral  fins  became  limbs,  the  body  was  remodelled, 
the  neck  and  the  beak  became  elongated,  and  the 
fish  discovered  itself  a  bird." 

Huxley  speaks  as  if  scant  justice  had  been  done 
to  Maillet,  but  we  must  infer  that  he  has  not 
thoroughly  examined  the  remarkable  metamorphoses 
of  which  the  above  is  a  moderate  example.  St. 
Hilaire  more  critically  and  justly  says :  — 

"  Quant  a  De  Maillet,  qui  fait  naitre  les  oiseaux  des  poissons 
volants,  les  reptiles  des  poissons  rampants,  et  les  hommes  des 
tritons,  ses  reveries,  en  partie  renouvel^es  d'Anaximandre,  ont 
leur  place  marquee,  non  dans  I'histoire  de  la  science,  mais  dans 
celle  des  aberrations  de  I'esprit  humain." 

His  remarkable  theories  were  expounded  in 
1749,  and  republished  in  1756;  the  letters  of  the 
title  of  his  book  reversed  those  of  his  own  name,  — 
Telliamed,  ou  Efttretiens  cTtui  philosophc  iiidioi  avcc 
U7i  missionaire  francais  sur  la  diuiinution  dc  la 
Mer.  The  argument  is  sustained  in  a  dialogue 
which  is  of  a  thoroughly  reverent  character, 
De  Maillet  endeavouring  to  show  that  his  system 
conforms   to  the  teachinojs  of  Genesis.     He  inter- 


112       EVOLUTIONISTS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

preted  the  days  of  Genesis  as  so  many  gradual 
periods  or  epochs,  holding  that  the  first  period  of 
life  was  preceded  by  a  universal  Deluge,  and  that 
the  origin  of  life  began  with  the  gradual  recession 
of  the  sea  from  the  earth.  Here  re-enters  the 
favourite  Greek  doctrine  of  pre-existing  germs. 
These  germs  were  predetermined  as  to  the  forms 
to  w^hich  they  should  give  rise,  but  only  those  forms 
developed  to  which  the  gradually  changing  envi- 
ronment was  favourable.  Thus,  the  lower  forms 
of  life  appeared  while  the  waters  were  still  in  ex- 
cess, while,  as  the  waters  receded,  higher  and 
higher  forms  arose.  But  the  scene  of  develop- 
ment was  invariably  the  sea;  the  germs  gave  rise 
to  no  land  forms  direct,  but  land  forms  were  always 
developed  by  transformation  from  marine  forms. 
Thus,  all  organisms  were  arranged  in  two  series : 
first,  the  aquatic  and  marine,  springing  directly 
from  the  germs ;  and  second,  the  terrestrial  and 
aerial,  arising  by  metamorphosis  from  the  marine. 
In  these  transformations  De  Maillet  was  not 
embarrassed  by  the  fixity  of  characters  or  by  the 
fact  that  no  such  metamorphoses  had  ever  been 
witnessed.  Yet,  we  find  buried  in  all  this  fiction 
tw^o  suggestions  of  theory.  De  Maillet  claims 
for  the  scientist  the  right  to  search  into  Nature 
direct  for  her  secrets.  He  finds  in  the  world  proofs 
that  the  days  of  Genesis  were  great  epochs  of  time, 
and  he  suggests  in  his  metamorphoses,  absurd  as 
they  are,  the  idea  of  the  modification  of  organisms 


MAUPERTUIS.  113 

by  environment  and  habit,  and  the  transmission  of 
these  modifications  to  the  descendants;  in  other 
words,  he  advocates  the  'transmission  of  acquired 
characters.' 

Peter  Louis  Moreau  de  Maupertuis  (1698- 
1759)  was  a  French  mathematician  and  astronomer 
of  considerable  reputation  in  his  day.  As  one  of 
the  most  prominent  members  of  the  eighteenth- 
century  French  circle  in  Berlin,  he  was  elected 
President  of  the  Berlin  Academy  in  1 746. 

His  contributions  to  the  Evolution  idea  are 
pointed  out  by  Perrier.  We  see  in  them  the  influ- 
ence of  Leibnitz,  and  learn  that  the  reputation  of 
Maupertuis  suffered  from  his  having  borrowed 
other  ideas  of  the  German  philosopher  in  a  paper 
which  he  advanced  upon  the  Conservation  of  En- 
ergy doctrine.  In  an  obscure  article,  Systcmc  de 
la  Nature:  Essai  stir  la  Formation  des  Corps  Orga- 
nises (1751),  which  has  been  unearthed  in  the 
course  of  the  present  diligent  search  for  all  the 
prophecies  of  Evolution,  we  find  that  Maupertuis 
had  an  original  theory  as  to  the  nature  of  living/ 
matter;  that  he  advanced  an  hypothesis  of  gcneraj 
tion  very  similar  to  that  of  Darwin,  and  also  a 
theory  of  the  origin  of  new  species.  He  did  not 
anticipate  the  '  Evolution  '  or  emboUemcnt  of  Bonnet, 
but  advanced  an  hypothesis  of  transformism,  based 
upon  the  idea  that  all  material  particles  are  in  some 
degree  invested  with  the  psychical  properties  of 
the  hidier  orcranisms ;  in  other  words,  the  monistic 
I 


114      EVOLUTIONISTS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

idea.  By  this  assumption  of  the  investment  of  non- 
living matter  with  the  properties  of  Hving  matter, 
he  was  in  a  position  to  readily  derive  the  latter  from 
the  former,  and  to  directly  unite  the  animate  and 
inanimate  worlds.  He  does  not  enter  into  detail 
as  to  the  origin  of  life,  but  carries  us  a  step  further 
in  his  ideas  of  heredity,  somewhat  on  the  lines  of 
Democritus,  and  of  Buffon,  who  had  published  his 
similar  '  theory  of  generation '  five  years  earlier 
(1746). 

"The  elementary  particles  which  form  the  embryo  are  each 
drawn  from  the  corresponding  structure  in  the  parent,  and  con- 
serve a  sort  of  recollection  {soiivejiir)  of  their  previous  form, 
so  that  in  the  offspring  they  will  reflect  and  reproduce  a  resem- 
blance to  the  parents.  ...  If  some  of  the  particles  happen  to 
be  missing,  an  imperfect  being  is  formed  ...  if  the  elements  of 
the  different  species  are  united,  a  hybrid  is  produced.  ...  In 
some  cases  a  child  resembles  one  of  his  ancestors  more  than  even 
its  parents ;  in  this  case  we  may  suppose  that  the  material  particles 
conserve  more  strongly  the  habits  they  possessed  in  the  ancestral 
form." 

Maupertuis  thus  gives  us  a  theory  which  resembles 
both  the  '  Pangenesis '  of  Darwin  and  the  '  Peri- 
genesis'  of  Haeckel.^ 

These  principles  of  reproduction  and  heredity 
enable  Maupertuis  to  explain  readily  the  origin  of 
new  species,  and  here  again  w^e  find  a  striking  an- 
ticipation of  one  modern  doctrine  of  the  cause  of 

1  In  Haeckel's  "  Perigenesis  of  the  plastidules,"  we  have  a  theory  of  hered- 
ity based  upon  the  assumption  that  the  material  hereditary  particles  preserve 
a  power  of  repetition  of  former  states  analogous  to  that  witnessed  in  memory. 


DIDEROT. 


115 


fortuitous  variation :  We  can,  he  says,  thus  readily 
explain  how  new  species  are  formed,  .  .  .  by  sup- 
posing that  the  elementary  particles  may  not  always 
retain  the  order  which  they  present  in  the  parents, 
but  may  fortuitously  produce  differences,  which, 
multiplying  and  accumulating,  have  resulted  in  the 
infinite  variety  of  species  which  we  see  at  the 
present  time.  The  modifications  arising  from 
different  habits  cause  the  varieties  thus  formed  to 
be  sterile  i7iter  se ;  thus  these  new  species  are  kept 
separate. 

Evolution,  according  to  this  hypothesis,  advances 
by  fortuity,  by  the  chance  combinations  of  hered- 
itary elements  which  produce  new  characters. 
Divergence  is  continued  and  fostered  by  physio- 
logical isolation. 

Denis  Diderot^  (171 3-1 784)  must  also  be  ranked 
as  one  of  the  speculative  contributors  to  the  theory 
of  the  origin  of  species.  Perrier  points  out  that  it 
was  an  essay  published  in  1751  by  Maupertuis, 
under  an  assumed  name,  which  called  forth  Dide- 
rot's Pen  sees  sur  L'  Interpretation  de  la  N'aturc, 
published  in  1754.  He  leaves  aside  the  question 
of  the  nature  of  inorganic  material  particles,  and 
begins  his  system  by  endowing  all  organic  parti- 
cles with  a  sort  of  rudimentary  sensibility,  which 

1  Denis  Diderot,  the  famous  man  of  letters  of  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  became  an  opponent  of  the  teleological  teaching  of  the  day.  He  is 
believed  to  have  contributed  to  D'Holbach's  Systhne  de  la  Nature,  which  was 
characterized  as  the  Bible  of  Atheism.  The  passages  quoted,  however,  indicate 
that  Diderot  was  a  theist. 


Il6       EVOLUTIONISTS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

It 

impels  them  to  constantly  change  their  position 
in  search  for  the  most  favourable  position,  —  a 
form  of  the  attraction  and  repulsion  doctrine  of 
Empedocles  applied  to  organic  particles :  "  The 
animal,"  he  says,  "  is  a  system  of  different  organic 
molecules,  which,  impelled  by  dim  sensations  simi- 
lar to  those  of  obtuse  and  vague  touch,  —  sensations 
which  have  been  imparted  to  them  by  Him  who 
created  matter  in  general,  —  have  combined,  until 
each  has  found  the  position  most  suitable  to  its 
form  and  to  its  repose.  This  position  may  be 
changed  by  the  innumerable  disturbances  caused 
by  an  access  of  new  particles  which  have  not  yet 
obtained  their  repose." 

He  proceeds  by  asking  the  question,  whether 
plants  and  animals  have  always  been  what  they 
now  are,  then  continuing  in  a  spirit  similar  to  that 
of  Descartes,  he  revives  the  Anaxagorean  doctrine 
of  pre-existent  germs  in  a  modified  form  :  — 

"  Even  if  Revelation  teaches  us  that  species  left  the  hands  of 
the  Creator  as  they  now  are,  the  philosopher  who  gives  himself 
up  to  conjecture  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  life  has  always  had 
its  elements  scattered  in  the  mass  of  inorganic  matter ;  that  it 
finally  came  about  that  these  elements  united  ;  that  the  embryo 
formed  of  this  union  has  passed  through  an  infinitude  of  organi- 
zation and  development ;  that  it  has  acquired,  in  succession,  move- 
ment, sensation,  ideas,  thought,  reflection,  conscience,  emotions, 
signs,  gestures,  articulation,  language,  laws,  and  finally  the  sciences 
and  arts ;  that  millions  of  years  have  elapsed  during  each  of  these 
phases  of  development,  and  that  there  are  still  new  developments 
to  be  taken  which  are  as  yet  unknown  to  us." 


DIDEROT.  r,/ 

The  hypothesis  of  Diderot  does  not  imply  his 
advocacy  of  an  '  internal  perfecting  tendency, '  for 
his  particles  do  not  arrange  themselves  in  any  pre- 
determined order.  It  is  rather  a  form  of  the  Survival 
of  the  Fittest  theory  applied,  not  to  entire  organisms, 
but  to  the  particles  of  which  it  is  composed.  Blind 
and  ceaseless  trials,  such  as  those  imagined  by  Em- 
pedocles,  Democritus,  and  Lucretius,  are  made  by 
these  particles,  impelled  by  their  rude  sensibility. 
As  a  sequel  of  many  failures,  finally  a  favourable 
combination  is  formed,  which  persists  until  a  recom- 
bination is  rendered  necessary. 

I  have  met  another  passage  by  Diderot,  quoted  in 
Morley's  biography  (II.  p.  91),  which  Morley  (not 
knowing  of  Empedocles'  hypothesis)  speaks  of  as  an 
anticipation  of  a  famous  modern  theory,  referring  of 
course  to  '  Natural  Selection.'  This  is  especially 
valuable  because  it  affords  another  conclusive  proof 
that  the  idea  of  the  '  Survival  of  the  Fittest '  must 
actually  be  traced  back  to  Empedocles,  six  centuries 
before  Christ.  It  is  contained  in  an  imaginary 
dialogue  upon  the  teleological  view  of  Nature 
between  '  Saunderson  '  and  the  '  Professor ' :  — 

"  I  may  at  least  ask  of  you,  for  example,  who  told  you  —  you 
and  Leibnitz  and  Clarke  and  Newton  —  that  in  the  first  instances 
of  the  formation  of  animals,  some  were  not  without  heads  and 
others  without  feet?  I  may  mention  .  .  .  that  all  the  faulty 
combinations  of  matter  disappeared,  and  that  those  individuals  only 
survived  whose  mechanism  implied  no  important  misadaptation 
(contradiction),  and  who  had  the  power  of  supporting  and  per- 
petuating themselves." 


Il8       EVOLUTIONISTS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

Charles  Bonnet  (i 720-1 793)  was  in  no  modern^ 
sense  an  evolutionist,  although  he  was  long  known! 
as  such  and  was  the  author  of  the  term.  He  derivedj 
it  from  e-volvo  to  express  his  remarkable  theory  of 
life,  which  was  an  adaptation  of  Leibnitz'  philosophy 
to  embryology.  The  term  became  a  7iomen  nudum 
when  the  doctrine  of  '  Epigenesis '  replaced  that  of 
'  Evolution,'  and  was  finally  taken  up  by,  and  applied 
as  appropriate  to,  our  modern  doctrine  of  develop- 
ment. We  recall,  in  passing,  the  great  and  prolonged 
discussions  during  the  eighteenth  and  the  early  part 
of  the  nineteenth  century,  between  the  '  evolution- 
ist '  and  '  epigenetic  '  school  of  embryonic  develop- 
ment, as  absorbing  an  immense  amount  of  time  and 
energy  and  diverting  the  attention  of  naturalists 
from  the  greater  problem  of  the  genesis  of  species. 

When  we  examine  Bonnet's  '  Evolution  or  expan- 
sion of  the  invisible  into  visibility '  and  absence 
of  generation  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  we  find 
it  dif^cult  to  believe  that  Cuvier,  and  many  other 
eminent  naturalists,  were  among  Bonnet's  support- 
ers. Erasmus  Darwin  was  among  his  opponents, 
and  we  see  in  his  Zoo7iomia  a  quaint  criticism  of 
Bonnet's  extravagant  hypothesis  :  — 

"  Many  ingenious  philosophers  have  found  so  great  difficulty  in 
conceiving  the  manner  of  reproduction  in  animals,  that  they  have 
supposed  all  the  numerous  progeny  to  have  existed  in  miniature  in 
the  animal  originally  created.  This  idea,  besides  its  being  unsup- 
ported by  any  analogy  we  are  acquainted  with,  ascribes  a  greater 
continuity  to  organized  matter  than  we  can  readily  admit,  .    .    . 


BONNET.  I  ig 

these  embryons  .  .  .  must  possess  a  greater  degree  of  minute- 
ness than  that  which  was  ascribed  to  the  devils  who  tempted  St. 
Anthony,  of  whom  twenty  thousand  were  said  to  have  been  able  to 
dance  a  saraband  on  the  point  of  a  needle  without  the  least  incom- 
moding each  other." 

We  become  more  charitable  in  judging  Bonnet  as 
a  man  of  science  when  we  learn  that,  befrinnin'r  in 
1740,  while  associated  with  Reaumur  in  the  Univer- 
sity of  Geneva,  he  made  a  series  of  admirable  obser- 
vations and  original  discoveries,  such  as  those  upon 
*  parthenogenesis '  in  the  Aphides  or  Tree  Lice,  the 
mode  of  reproduction  in  the  Bryozoa,  the  respira- 
tion of  insects,  and  that  it  was  the  unfortunate  fail- 
ure of  his  eyesight  in  1754  which  turned  him  from 
observation  to  speculation.  His  speculations  were 
as  unsound  as  his  observations  had  been  sound  and 
valuable. 

Bonnet,  in  1764,  published  his  Contemplations  de 
la  Nature,  and  in  1768  his  Palingenesie  PJiiloso- 
phique,  ou  idees  stir  Vetat passe  et  snr  Fetat  dcs  Etrcs 
^ivants.  The  latter  work  is  dedicated  "to  tlie 
friends   of    Truth  and    of    Virtue,  who  are  mine." 

Bonnet  found  his  inspiration  in  the  law  of  Conti- 
nuity of  Leibnitz,- and  along  different  lines  of  rea- 
soning he  reached  the  same  conclusion  as  the  great 
German  philosopher,  that  no  such  thing  as  genera- 
tion, in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  occurs  in 
Nature.  Leibnitz'  law  of  Continuity  he  exj^ands 
into  the  idea  that  all  creation  forms  a  continuous 
chain  from  the  mineral  up  to  the  top  of  the  animal 


I20      EVOLUTIOXISTS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

world.  In  the  present  order  of  life  there  are  no 
successive  acts  of  creation,  as  is  generally  believed 
by  those  who  attempt  to  adapt  the  discoveries,  of 
Palaeontology  to  the  Mosaic  account.  The  Uni- 
verse moves  on  by  its  own  internal  forces,  and  the 
whole  of  organic  life  was  contained  preformed  in 
the  germs  of  the  first  beings.  Life  thus  forms  a 
scale  of  absolutely  unbroken  individuals ;  the  vari- 
eties form  links  from  species  to  species;  the  first 
term  of  this  chain  is  the  atom,  the  last  is  the  most 
elevated  of  cherubim ;  the  chain  is  not  broken  by 
death,  for  the  individual  is  the  bearer  of  all  future 
germs.  Here  we  find  an  adumbration  of  the 
'  immortality  or  continuity  of  the  germ-plasm  '  in 
relation  to  the  death  of  the  individual. 

Added  to  this  law  of  Continuity,  is  an  Aristote- 
lian '  internal  perfecting  principle,'  which  causes 
these  germs  to  pass  from  the  mineral  to  the  plant, 
from  the  plant  to  the  animal,  from  the  animal  to 
man.  In  these  transformations.  Bonnet  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  deterred  by  his  anatomical 
knowledge,  nor  to  have  in  the  least  degree  em- 
bodied the  ideas  of  transformism  which  were  then 
being  advanced  by  Buffon ;  he  believes  that  the 
appearance  of  higher  forms  is  simply  the  unfolding 
of  pre-existing  germs,  and  not  due  to  evolution  by 
modification,  nor  to  the  appearance  of  new  lower 
forms  by  Abiogenesis.  Why  does  not  Evolution 
produce  animals  wholly  unfit  for  their  environ- 
ment }     This  difficulty  is  met  by  Bonnet's  assump- 


ROBTXET.  121 

tion  that  as  the  whole  future  Hfe  was  predetermined, 
so  is  the  whole  order  of  the  inorganic  Universe. 
There  can,  therefore,  be  no  possibility  of  an  animal 
or  plant  appearing  out  of  its  proper  environment. 

Bonnet  belonged  to  the  cataclysmic  school,  be- 
lieving that  the  globe  had  been  the  scene  of  great 
revolutions,  and  that  the  chaos  described  by  Moses 
was  the  closing  chapter  of  one  of  these;  thus,  the 
Creation  described  in  Genesis  may  be  only  a  resur- 
rection of  animals  previously  existing.  Bonnet 
formulated  his  echelle  or  scale  in  a  manner  which 
suggests,  not  the  branching  system  of  Lamarck, 
but  the  continuous  links  of  a  chain  in  which  the 
higher  types  are  simply  connected  with  the  lower 
in  direct  continuity.  It  is  the  old  scale  of  Aristotle 
enlarged  and  defined  by  more  modern  terminology. 

J.  B.  Rene  Robinet  (i 735-1820)  was  another  of 
the  speculative  group.  In  his  two  works,  —  Dc  la 
Nature,  published  in  1766,  and  Considerations  Phi lo- 
sophiques  sur  la  gradation  natitrclle  dcs  formes  de 
I'etre,  published  in  1768, —  he  advances  a  remark- 
able evolutionary  structure.  He  denies  all  distinc- 
tion between  the  organic  and  inorganic,  and  reaches 
an  'echelle  des  etres'  which  embraces  all  things. 
Influenced  by  Leibnitz'  law  of  Continuity,  he  sup- 
poses that  Nature  has  an  aim  or  constant  tendency 
towards  the  perfection  of  each  type ;  since  the 
besfinningr  her  aim  has  been  to  produce  Man,  and 
the  higher  apes  appear  as  the  last  efforts  of  Nature 
before  she  succeeded  in  making  Man.     It  is  unnec- 


1 


122       EVOLUTIONISTS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

essary  to  add  that  Robinet  was  a  daring  speculator. 
He  claimed  that  one's  first  steps  should  be  guided 
by  facts,  but  that  beyond  this,  man's  reason  and 
intelligence  should  not  be  trammelled  by  observa- 
tion or  by  experiment,  but  should  advance  free 
from  induction. 

Robinet  sees  in  man  the  chef-cToeuvre  of  Nature. 
All  the  variations  exhibited  in  the  lower  forms  of 
animals,  from  the  original  prototype  upwards,  are  to 
be  regarded  as  so  many  trials  which  Nature  medi- 
tates upon ;  not  only  the  orang-outang,  but  the 
horse,  the  dog,  even  minerals  and  fossils,  —  are  not^ 
these  experiments  of  Nature  ?  But  man  is  for  the 
time  only  the  last  of  the  series,  for  beings  more  per- 
fect may  replace  him  at  any  time.  Robinet  departs 
so  early  from  observation  to  hypothesis,  that  he  may 
be  placed  as  one  of  the  most  extreme  and  irrational 
of  this  group.  His  work,  De  la  Nature,  is  one  of 
the  greatest  curiosities  of  natural  history  literature  ; 
-he  gives  a  long  and  serious  catalogue  of  stones  and 
other  inorganic  objects  which  bear  accidental  and 
remote  resemblances  to  the  various  bodily  organs  of 
man  and  the  lower  animals.  These  are  figured  and 
seriously  described,  together  with  monsters  of  vari- 
ous kinds,  and  mermaids  well  authenticated,  as  some 
of  the  early  trials  of  Nature  in  the  attempt  to  produce 
man. 

In  one  of  his  general  principles  Robinet  was 
sound.  Like  Leibnitz  and  unlike  Bonnet  and  De 
Maillet,  he  was  a  uniformitarian.     Nature,  he  says. 


OK  EN.  ^  ^ 


never  advances  by  leaps.  He  applies  this,  how- 
ever, to  the  origin  of  life,  and  says  there  is  no  break 
between  the  organic  and  inorganic.  The  law  of 
Continuity  applies  to  germs  of  inanimate  as  well 
as  of  animate  matter,  — these  germs  are  capable 
of  developing  into  every  possible  form;  thus,  all 
matter  is  living  and  there  is  only  one  kincrdom  — 
the  Animal  Kingdom.  The  germs  develop  from 
the  simplest  to  the  most  complex,  and  animals  thus 
arising  form  a  continuous  chain  of  beings,  of  which 
the  first  link  is  a  prototype  of  the  utmost  simplicity. 
Germs,  we  see,  being  infinitely  small  and  placed  far 
beyond  the  reach  of  experimental  affirmation  or 
denial,  are  the  favourite  field  of  the  speculations  of 
all  these  philosophers. 

There  is  no  idea  of  filiation  or  of  Evolution  in  the 
true  sense  in  Robinet's  system  of  a  gradual  change 
of  a  lower  form  into  a  higher;  all  the  lower,  inter- 
mediate, and  higher  forms  are  held  to  be  the  direct 
products  of  the  germs  of  Nature.  In  sexual  repro- 
duction, for  example,  the  two  parents  do  not  pro- 
duce these  germs,  but  are  simply  the  bearers  of 
them,  and  generation  consists  merely  in  placing 
these  germs  under  circumstances  in  which  they  can 
develop. 

Lorenzo  Oken  ^  (1776-185 1)  approached  the  prob- 
lems of  life  with  certain  preconceived  notions  of 
how  things  ought  to  be ;  as  half  philosopher,   half 

1  Oken   was  born  at  Baden  and  was  educated  at  Wurtzburg;    was  later  Pro- 
fessor in  the  University  of  Zurich. 


124      EVOLUTIONISTS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

naturalist,  it  is  evident  that  most  of  his  conclusions 
were  reached  purely  a  priori.  Haeckel  extrava- 
gantly writes  in  his  praise  that  "  no  doctrine  ap- 
proaches so  nearly  to  the  natural  theory  of  descent 
as  that  contained  in  Oken's  much-decried  Natitr 
Philosophie, "  Yet  in  his  cellular  conception  of 
the  primordial  forms  of  life,  Oken  was,  in  part, 
anticipated  by  Buffon,  by  the  elder  Darwin  and  by 
Lamarck ;  as  has  been  said  in  his  sea-slime  theory, 
he  follows  so  primitive  a  naturalist  as  Anaximander  ; 
and  in  judging  of  his  supposed  anticipation  of  the 
cell  doctrine  of  Schleiden  and  Schwann,  we  must 
keep  in  mind  the  stress  that  is  laid  throughout  all 
his  philosophy  upon  the  spherical  form  of  his  meta- 
physical '  AIL'  The  skull,  for  example,  he  believed 
to  be  one  of  these  manifestations  of  the  archetypal 
sphere ;  it  is  not  surprising  that  he  conceived  the 
cell  as  a  sphere. 

There  is  thus  room  for  wide  differences  of  opin- 
ion about  Oken ;  his  writings  are  such  compounds 
of  apparent  sense  and  actual  nonsense,  that  only  by 
selecting  and  putting  together  certain  favourably 
read  passages,  can  we  accord  him  the  rank  Haeckel 
claims  for  him  as  a  prophet,  whereas  if  we  review 
as  a  whole  his  elements  of  '  physio-philosophy,'  it 
appears  that  his  prophecies  of  one  page  are  capable 
upon  the  following  page  of  interpretation  as  the 
vaguest  speculations  and  absurdities.  He  published 
his  outline  of  the  Philosophie  der  Natur  in  1802,  in 
the  same  year  in  which  Lamarck  and  Treviranus 


OK  EN.  125 

independently  outlined  their  theories  of  Biology  and 
Evolution.  Oken's  work  is  certainly  not  to  be  men- 
tioned in  the  same  breath  with  theirs,  from  the 
modern  standpoint.  His  work  upon  Generation  — 
DieZeugung — appeared  in  1805,  containing  his  Ur- 
Schlehn  ( ?  protoplasm)  and  vesicular  cell  theory.  His 
"  Manual  of  the  Philosophy  of  Nature"  appeared  in 
1809,  in  the  same  year  with  Lamarck's  Philosophic 
Zoologique ;  again  Oken  suffers  severely  by  com- 
parison. Lamarck's  is  a  work  of  science,  Oken's  is 
a  tissue  of  speculation.  Li  estimating  Oken  further, 
we  must  remember  that  he  is  a  follower  of  the  school 
of  Schelling,  and  that  Schelling's  method  was  to 
rapidly  abandon  scientific  induction  for  deduction, 
and  to  pass  to  the  interpretation  of  Nature  from  a 
subjective  standpoint.  Oken's  writings  show  that 
he  was  consistent  in  this  method,  and  Erdmann  re- 
calls that  Oken's  conversion  of  the  whole  of  philos- 
ophy into  the  philosophy  of  Nature  is  a  carrying 
out  of  what  Schelling  merely  touched  upon. 

It  is  the  famous  Ur-Schleim  doctrine,  in  whicli 
Oken's  admirers  read  notions  of  the  original  proto-  1 
plasmic  and  cellular  basis  of  all  life,  and  in  which 
it  is  said  he  saw  the  fundamental  substance  out  of 
which  by  differentiation  life  has  arisen.^  "  Every  J 
organic  thing  has  arisen  out  of  slime,  and  is  noth- 
ing but  slime  in  different  forms.  This  primitive 
slime  originated  in  the  sea,  from  inorganic  matter, 

1  These  quotations  are  from  Tulk's  translation,  the  Elements  of  Physio- 
philosophy,  published  in  1847. 


126       EVOLUTIONISTS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY, 

in  the  course  of  planetary  evolution.  The  origin 
of  life  [geiieralio  originaria)  occurred  upon  the 
shores,  where  water,  air,  and  earth  were  joined." 
The  Ur-Schleim  assumed  the  form  of  microscopi- 
cally minute  bladders,  and  Nature  has  for  its  unit 
an  infinity  of  these.  Each  of  these  bladders  has 
an  outer  dense  envelope  and  a  fluid  internal  con- 
tent. This '  infusorium,'  as  he  calls  it,  has  the  form 
of  a  sphere,  and  is  developed  in  the  following  man- 
ner: it  is  first  an  aggregate  of  an  almost  infinite 
number  of  organic  points;  as  the  result  of  the  oxy- 
dizing  process,  the  original  fluid  form  is  replaced 
by  a  vesicle  with  a  flowing  interior  and  firm  periph- 
ery ;  in  this  are  united  the  three  life  processes 
of  feeding,  digestion,  and  respiration.  The  whole 
organic  world  consists  of  infusoria,  and  both  plants 
and  animals  are  simply  its  modifications. 

Generation,  according  to  Oken,  is  the  synthesis 
or  bringing  together  of  organic  spheres  ;  as  with 
Robinet,  it  is  the  synthesis  of  germs,  and  with 
Maupertuis  and  Diderot,  the  synthesis  of  particles. 
Like  the  Greeks,  Oken  imagined  that  the  combina- 
tion of  these  infinitely  numerous  mucous  points 
or  infusoria,  composed  of  carbon  mixed  in  equal 
quantities  with  water  and  air,  found  its  most  favour- 
able conditions  at  the  junction  of  sea  and  land. 
*'  All  life,"  he  says,  "is  from  the  sea;  the  whole  sea 
is  alive.  Love  arose  out  of  sea-foam."  In  one 
passage,  he  says :  "  If  new  individuals  originate, 
they  could  not  originate  directly  from  others,  but 


OKEN, 


127 


they  must  be  resolved  into  the  Ur-ScJilcim:'  A 
few  pages  further  on  he  offers  his  hypothesis  of  the 
origin  of  man,  which  is  entirely  inconsistent  with 
any  form  of  cell  doctrine,  when  he  says:  "  Man  also 
is  the  offspring  of  some  warm  and  gentle  seashore, 
and  probably  rose  in  India,  where  the  first  peaks 
appeared  above  the  waters.  A  certain  mingling  of 
water,  of  blood  warmth,  and  of  atmosphere,  must 
have  conjoined  for  his  production ;  and  this  may 
have  happened  only  once  and  at  one  spot."  When 
we  consider  that  this  was  allowed  to  stand  in  a 
work  translated  in  1847,  long  after  Buffon's,  E.  Dar- 
win's, and  Lamarck's  speculations  upon  the  origin 
of  man  had  been  published,  it  shows  that  Oken  was 
not  only  a  Greek  survival  as  a  thinker,  but  that  he 
entirely  ignored  the  contemporary  progress  of  sci- 
ence in  France  and  England.  In  another  passage 
he  says,  entirely  oblivious  as  well  of  his  Ur-Schlcim 
as  of  his  previous  statements :  "  Man  has  not  been  ' 
created,  but  developed,  so  the  Bible  itself  teaches 
us.  God  did  not  make  man  out  of  nothing,  but  took 
an  elemental  body  then  existing  —  an  earth-clod  or 
carbon;  moulded  it  into  form,  thus  making  use  of 
water;  and  breathed  into  it  life  —  namely,  air  — 
whereby  galvanism  or  the  vital  process  arose." 


128     evolutionists  of  the  eighteenth  century. 

The  Great  Naturalists. 

The  first  of  the  great  naturalists,  Linnaeus  and 
Buffon,  were  born,  only  four  days  apart,  early  in 
the  eighteenth  century,  or  eighty-one  years  after 
the  death  of  Bacon. 

In  the  environment  of  the  idea  of  Evolution, 
LiNN^us  (i 707-1 778)  may  be  considered  not  as  a 
positive  but  as  one  of  the  negative  factors,  as  founding 
the  '  school  of  facts '  of  which  Cuvier  was  later  the  dis- 
tinguished leader.  Linnaeus  had  been  preceded  as 
a  systematist  by  Wotton  in  1552,  one  of  the  last  of 
the  Aristotelian  zoologists ;  by  Gessner  of  the  same 
period,  and  one  of  the  first  zoologists  who  shook  off 
the  traditions  of  Aristotle;  by  Aldrovandi  in  1599; 
by  Sperling  in  1661  ;  and  by  Ray,  who  first  clearly 
pointed  out  the  two  criteria  of  a  species,  as  per- 
manence of  form  and  appearance,  and  non-fertility 
with  other  species.  Ray  was  followed  by  a  number 
of  dry,  descriptive  writers,  who  worked  upon  the 
larger  groups  of  animals  and  plants.  Finally  the 
turning-point  to  modern  Zoology  and  Botany  was 
marked  by  the  great  work  of  Linnaeus,  the  Systema 
NaturcE,  The  binary  system  of  nomenclature 
therein  proposed  was  a  mere  tool  for  the  expression 
of  his  broad  conceptions  of  the  relation  of  animals 
and  plants  to  each  other.  Species  were  in  his 
mind  the  units  of  direct  Creation  ;  each  species  bore 
the  impression  of  the  thought  of  the  Creator,  not 
only  in  its  external  form  but  in  its  anatomical  struc- 


LINN^US.  I2Q 


ture,  its  faculties,  its  functions;  and  the  end  of 
classification  was  to  consider  all  these  facts  and  to 
arrange  animals  in  a  natural  system  accordin^r 
to  their  greater  or  less  likeness. 

Linnaeus    thus   took    a   broad   view  of    the   true 
basis   of   classification    upon    general    structure,    a 
view  which  was  expanded  and  developed  by  Cuvier. 
As    Perrier  observes  in   his   admirable   critique   of 
Linnaeus,    he    adopted    the    aphorism    of    Leibnitz 
iiatura  no7i  facit  saltum  ;  to  him  every  species  was 
exactly    intermediate    between    two    others:    "We 
reckon  as  many  species  as  issued  in  pairs  from  the 
hands  of  the  Creator."    These  were  his  earlier  views 
in  all  his  writings  between  1735  and  1751,  in  which 
the  sentence  nullce  specice  uovcb  recurs,  expressing 
his  idea  of  the  absolute  fixity  of  species  from  the 
period  of  their  creation  as  described  in  Genesis,  the 
only  change  being  that  of  the  extension  in  numbers, 
not  of  variation  in   kind.     Yet   Linnaeus   was   too 
close  an  observer  to  continue  to  hold  this  idea  of 
absolute  fixity,  and  in   1762  we  find  his  views  had 
somewhat  altered,  and  this  is  of  particular  interest 
because   of  the  hypothesis  which   he  advanced   to 
explain  the  origin  of  new  species:   "  All  the  species 
of  one   genus   constituted   at   first  (that   is,   at   the 
Creation)  one  species,  ab  initio  iduxdi  coustitucriiit 
speciem ;    they   were    subsequently    multiplied    by 
hybrid    generation,   that    is,   by   intercrossing  with 
other  species."     He  was  thus  inclined  to  admit  a 
great    increase    of    species,    more    or    less    recent 


130      EVOLUTIONISTS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

in  origin,  arising  by  hybridity,  and  losing  their 
perfection  of  type.  He  elsewhere  suggested  that 
defeneration  was  the  result  of  the  influences  of 
climate  or  environment. 

In  the  last  and  thoroughly  revised  edition  of  the 
Systema  Natures,  which  appeared  in  1766,  we  no 
longer  find  this  fundamental  proposition  of  his 
earlier  works,  nullce  specice  novce.  This  change  of 
view  was,  however,  of  a  very  mild  character  in  com- 
parison with  the  very  radical  views  as  to  the  muta- 
bility of  species  which  Buffon  was  expressing  about 
the  same  time.  The  influence  of  Linnaeus  w^as 
vast;  far  greater  than  that  of  Buffon  among  his 
contemporaries.  The  two  men  were  compared  to 
the  disadvantage  of  the  latter,  and  Buffon  has  been 
charged  with  jealousy  of  the  great  Swede.  The 
reason  why  the  works  of  Linnaeus  were  more  influ- 
ential is  obvious ;  his  system  was  adapted  to  the 
general  state  of  knowledge  in  his  day,  while  the 
ideas  of  Buffon  were  in  advance  of  his  day,  and 
incapable  of  proof  in  the  existing  stage  of  knowledge. 

George  Louis  Leclerc  Buffon  (i  707-1 788) 
may  be  called  the  naturalist  founder  of  the  modern 
applied  form  of  the  Evolution  theory.  It  is  true 
that  his  conception  of  the  range  of  Evolution 
changed  during  three  periods  of  his  life ;  that  it  is 
difficult  to  Qfather  from  his  conflictino^  statements 
exactly  what  his  opinions  were,  yet  he  laid  the  basis 
of  modern  Evolution  in  Zoology  and  Botany.  We 
claim  this  for  him,  because  he  first  pointed  out,  on 


BUFF  ON. 


131 


a  broad  scale,  the  mutability  of  species  in  relation 
to  changes  of  environment.  Moreover,  he  ad- 
vanced beyond  the  Greek  and  philosophical  evohi- 
tionists,  in  first  working  out  a  definite  theory  of 
the  causes  of  mutability.  His  writings,  which 
cover  the  widest  range  of  subjects,  from  Cosmogony 
down  to  some  of  the  minutiae  of  Zoology,  undoubt- 
edly exercised  a  great  influence  in  England  and  in 
Europe.  He  sowed  the  seed  of  suggestion  in  some 
passages,  which,  it  is  true,  were  mostly  speculative, 
and  these  seeds  germinated  in  the  minds  of  the 
later  German  Natural  Philosophers,  and  among 
Buffon's  contemporary  naturalists,  while  ripening 
and  bearing  fruit  in  his  successor,  Lamarck,  and 
others,  both  in  France  and  England.  Buffon's 
suggestiveness  was  one  of  his  chief  merits.  It 
sprang  from  an  imagination  which  Diderot  eulo- 
gized :  "  Heureux  le  philosophe  systematique  a  qui 
la  Nature  aura  donne  comme  autrefois  a  Epicure, 
a  Lucrece,  a  Aristote,  a  Platon,  une  imagination 
forte.  .  .  ."  This  imagination  made  and  unmade 
Buffon,  for  it  touched  alike  his  soundest  and 
unsoundest  speculations. 

In  his  early  period  Buffon  shared  the  views  of 
Linnaeus,  his  contemporary,  and  it  is  interesting  to 
contrast  these  two  great  men,  —  one  the  founder  of 
the  view  of  Classification  as  a  fixed  system  of  the 
divine  order  of  things,  and  the  71c  plus  ultra  of 
Botany  and  Zoology  — the  other  the  founder  of 
the   directly   opposed  view  of    Classification  as  an 


132       EVOLUTIONISTS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

invention  of  man,  and  of  the  laws  governing  the 
relations  of  animals  and  their  environment  as  the 
chief  end  of  science.  In  an  early  edition  of  Buf- 
fon's  Histoire  Nahirelle,  we  find  him  using  almost 
the  exact  words  of  Linnaeus :  "  In  animals,  species 
are  separated  by  a  gap  which  Nature  cannot  bridge 
over.  .  .  .  We  see  him,  the  Creator,  dictating  his 
simple  but  beautiful  laws  and  impressing  upon  each 
species  its  immutable  characters." 

Krause  points  out  that  as  early  as  1755  {Histoire 
Naturelle,  tome  v.  pp.  103,  104)  Buffon  found  in 
comparative  anatomy  many  difficulties  in  the  Spe- 
cial Creation  theory.  "  The  pig,"  he  says,  "  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  formed  upon  an  original, 
special,  and  perfect  plan,  since  it  is  a  compound  of 
other  animals ;  it  has  evidently  useless  parts,  or 
rather  parts  of  which  it  cannot  make  any  use,  toes 
all  the  bones  of  which  are  perfectly  formed,  and 
which,  nevertheless,  are  of  no  service  to  it.  Nature 
is  far  from  subjecting  herself  to  final  causes  in  the 
formation  of  her  creatures."  In  always  looking  for 
a  purpose  or  design  in  every  part,  he  continues, 
"  We  fail  to  see  that  we  thus  deprive  philosophy 
of  its  true  character,  and  misrepresent  its  object, 
which  consists  in  the  knowledge  of  the  '  how  '  of 
things,  the  way  in  which  Nature  acts.  .  .  ."  This 
thought  was  reiterated  by  Goethe. 

In  1 76 1  we  find  that  he  had  advanced  to  a  belief 
in  the  frequent  mutability  of  species :  "  How  many 
species,  being  ('  denaturees ')  perfected  or  degenerated 


BUFF  ON.  133 

by  the  great  changes  in  land  and  sea,  by  the  favours 
or  disfavours  of  Nature,  by  food,  by  the  prolon^^cd 
influences  of  climate,  contrary  or  favourable,  arc  no 
longer  what  they  formerly  were''  Again  he  says: 
"  One  is  surprised  at  the  rapidity  with  which  species 
vary,  and  the  facility  with  which  they  lose  their 
primitive  characteristics  in  assuming  new  forms." 

We  are  tempted  to  translate  the  term  '  daia- 
titrees'  by  our  modern  term  'evolved,'  since,  as  we 
see  above,  Buffon  embraced  in  it  the  two  modern 
ideas  of  development  {' perfectionnemcnt')  and  de- 
generation i!^ degmeration').  But  this  would  convey 
a  broader  conception  than  seems  to  have  been  at 
any  time  in  his  mind  ;  for,  by  the  express  use  of 
'  ^(^/^(^^//r^^i-,' he  gives  us  an  insight  into  the  limits 
of  his  conception.  He  could  not  wholly  shake  off 
the  idea  that  each  species  was  originally  a  special 
type,  as  impressed  by  the  Creator,  containing  some 
ineffaceable  and  permanent  characters,  and  tliat 
variation  consisted  in  the  departure  from  these 
natural  and  original  characters.  Thus  he  was 
deeply  impressed  with  the  fixity  of  type  impression 
among  the  larger  animals,  such  as  the  quadru])cds, 
believing  them  to  be  comparatively  invariable. 
Throughout  Buffon's  writings  we  find  this  waver- 
inor  between  the  science  of  Genesis  and  the  evidence 
of  zoology.  It  is  sometimes  expressed  in  i)ara- 
graphs  which  closely  follow  one  another,  wlierein  it 
is  difficult  to  decide  whether  Buffon  is  ironical  or 
not.     Referrinor,  in  one  instance,  to  his  idea  of  unity 


134      EVOLUTIONISTS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

of  type,  he  seems  to  indicate  that,  in  creating  ani- 
mals, the  Supreme  Being  only  employed  a  single 
idea,  and  at  the  same  time  varied  it  in  every  possi- 
ble manner ;  passing  on  to  the  unity  of  type  which 
pervades  certain  families,  he  says,  in  effect :  If  we 
reason  out  this  matter,  we  find  that  the  fundamen- 
tal idea  of  the  family  is  community  of  origin  for  the 
man  and  the  ape,  as  well  as  for  the  horse  and  the 
ass.  The  ass  is  a  degenerate  horse  ;  the  ape  is  a 
degenerate  man.  In  carrying  this  back  to  its  logi- 
cal extreme,  w^e  are  forced  to  admit  that  these 
animals  sprang  from  a  common  source,  —  from  one 
animal,  which,  in  the  succession  of  time,  has  pro- 
duced by  perfecting  itself  {se  perfectioniiant),  and 
by  degeneration,  all  the  races  of  other  animals. 
But  no,  he  continues  (whether  seriously  or  not  it  is 
hard  to  say),  it  is  certain  by  Revelation  that  all 
animals  have  shared  the  benefits  of  direct  creation, 
and  have  issued,  completely  formed,  pair  by  pair, 
from  the  hands  of  the  Creator. 

"...  Mais  non :  il  est  certain,  par  la  revelation,  que  tous  les 
animaux  ont  ^galement  participe  a  la  grace  de  la  creation ;  que 
les  deux  premiers  de  chaque  espece,  et  de  toutes  les  especes,  sont 
sortis  tout  formes  des  mains  du  Cr^ateur ;  et  Ton  doit  croire  qu'ils 
etaient  tels  a  peu  pres  qu'ils  nous  sont  aujourd'hui  representes 
par  leurs  descendants." 

It  is  this  wavering  of  opinion  and  this  change 
from  earlier  to  later  views  which  has  led  different 
writers  to  hold  such  widely  different  opinions  as  to 
Buffon's  share  in  the  development  of  the  Evolution 


BUFF  ON.  ,3^ 

'  idea.  M.  de  Lanessan  claims  for  him  tlie  position 
which  is  usually  accorded  to  Lamarck  ;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  other  writers,  such  as  Isidore  St.  Hilaire 
and  Haeckel,  assign  him  a  much  less  important 
position.  St.  Hilaire  shows  clearly  that  his  opin- 
ions marked  three  periods.  Quatrefages  hardly 
realizes  the  great  influence  exerted  by  the  writings 
of  Buffon's  middle  period,  when  his  views  were 
most  extreme.  Lanessan,  his  greatest  admirer,  be- 
lieves that  he  has  anticipated  not  only  Lamarck  in 
his  conception  of  the  action  of  environment,  but 
Darwin  in  the  struggle  for  existence  and  Survival 
of  the  Fittest.  There  is  no  doubt  that  in  some 
passages  Buffon  doubted  not  only  the  fixity,  but 
even  the  reality  of  species,  genera,  families,  and 
other  taxonomic  divisions ;  also  that  he  wrote  of 
the  chain  of  organic  life  from  the  zoophytes  to  the 
monkeys  and  man,  thus  borrowing  from  Aristotle 
and  suggestive  of  Bonnet  and  his  famous  scale. 

Buffon's  ideas  regarding  the  physical  basis  of 
heredity  are  very  similar  to  those  of  Democritus, 
and  certainly  contain  the  basis  of  the  conception 
of  the  Pangenesis  theory  of  Darwin,  for  he  supposes 
that  the  elements  of  the  germ-cells  were  gathered 
from  all  parts  of  the  body.  He  does  not  expressly 
speak  of  the  transmission  of  acquired  characters  as 
a  logical  part  of  his  theory  of  heredity,  but  such 
transmission  was  undoubtedly  in  his  mind,  although 
not  clearly  formulated  as  by  Lamarck. 

He  illustrates   the  direct   influences   of  environ- 


136       EVOLUTIONISTS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

ment  in  the  changes  observed  in  the  different  races 
of  men  as  connected  with  differences  of  cHmate. 
He  carefully  traces  the  modifications  which  are  due 
to  the  domestication  of  various  wild  animals.  He 
speaks  of  the  formation  of  new  varieties  of  animals 
by  artificial  selection,  and  shows  that  similar  results 
may  be  produced  in  Nature  by  geographical  migra- 
tion, thus  having  in  mind  the  '  segregation '  law^ 
later  developed  by  Wagner. 

The  struggle  for  existence,  the  elimination  of  the 
least-perfected  species,  the  contest  between  the 
fecundity  of  certain  species  and  their  constant 
destruction,  are  all  clearly  expressed  in  various  pas- 
sages. Thus  we  find  Buffon  anticipating  Malthus  ^ 
in  the  following  passage :  — 

"  Le  cours  ordinaire  de  la  nature  vivante,  est  en  g^n^ral  toujours 
constant,  toujours  le  meme ;  son  mouvement,  toujours  regulier, 
roule  sur  deux  points  inebranlables  :  Pun,  la  fecondite  sans  bornes 
donn^e  a  toutes  les  especes ;  I'autre,  les  obstacles  sans  nombre 
qui  r^duisent  cette  fecondite  a  une  mesure  d^tcrmin^e  et  ne  lais- 
sent  en  tout  temps  qu'a  peu  pres  la  meme  quantity  d'individus  de 
chaque  espece." 

Again,  his  idea  of  the  elimination  of  the  least- 
perfected  species  is  shown  in  the  following  passage, 
also  quoted  by  De  Lanessan :  — 

"  Les  especes  les  moins  parfaites,  les  plus  d^licates,  les  plus 
pesantes,  les  moins  agissantes,  les  moins  armies,  etc.,  ont  deja  dis- 
paru  or  disparaitront." 

1  Thomas  Robert  Malthus  (i  766-1 834)  published  his  famous  work,  An 
Essay  ott  the  Principle  of  Population  as  it  affects  the  Future  Improvement  of 
Society,  in  1798,  while  Buffon  made  the  last  addition  to  his  Histoire  N^aturelle 
in  1789.  As  another  instance  of  continuity  it  is  interesting  to  recall  the  obli- 
gation Darwin  expresses  to  Malthus. 


BUFFON. 


^17 


Buffon  not  only  saw  the  negative  influences  of 
environment  in  the  reduction  of  numbers  and  in 
the  reduction  of  imperfect  types,  but  also  its  posi- 
tive action  in  the  production  of  new  characters,  and 
here  we  come  upon  the  third  and  main  feature  of 
what  may  be  called  his  theory  of  the  factors  of  Evo- 
lution ;  namely,  the  direct  action  of  environment  in 
the  modification  of  the  structure  of  animals  and , 
plants  and  the  conservation  of  these  modifications 
through  heredity.  He  applied  this  factor  to  the 
origin  of  new  species  in  the  New  World  of  Amer- 
ica. It  is  amusing  to  the  modern  zoologist  to  note 
that  Buffon,  in  common  with  all  his  contemporaries, 
always  conceived  of  the  New  World  as  not  only 
new  in  point  of  discovery,  but  as  new  in  its  zoologi- 
cal evolution.  He  illustrated  his  ideas  as  to  the 
direct  action  of  environment  in  saying  that  Old- 
World  types,  finding  their  way  into  the  New  World, 
would  there  undergo  modifications  sufficient  to  cause 
us  to  regard  them  as  new  species;  and  in  this  con- 
nection Buffon  expresses  the  uniformitarian  idea 
which  Lamarck  carried  to  such  an  extreme  (which 
was  opposed  to  his  general  cataclysmal  teaching, 
that  Nature  is  in  a  continual  state  of  transition) ; 
namely,  that  man  must  consider  and  observe 
changes  which  are  going  on  in  his  own  period  \w 
order  to  understand  what  has  gone  on  in  the  past, 
and  what  will  happen  in  the  future. 

It   is   with   such   passages   as   these   that   r)uffon 
inspired  later  writers  to  consider  the  great  problem. 


138       EVOLUTIONISTS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

He  may  be  said  to  have  asked  all  the  questions 
which  were  to  be  answered  in  the  course  of  the 
succeeding  century.  It  is  in  this  suggestiveness 
that  we  find  his  chief  merits.  As  St.  Hilaire  says^ 
his  glory  lies  in  what  he  prepared  for  his  successors, 
in  his  creation  of  a  philosophy  of  Comparative 
Zoology,  his  views  of  community  of  origin,  laws  of 
geographical  distribution,  extinction  of  old  species, 
and  successive  apparition  of  new  species.  In  order 
to  be  fair  to  Buffon's  followers,  we  must  further  test 
the  breadth  of  his  conception  by  his  application  of 
it  to  the  succession  of  life  ;  and  we  here  find  in 
numerous  passages,  as  pointed  out  by  Quatrefages, 
that  his  conception  was  very  limited. 

After  having  maintained  in  his  first  period  the 
extreme  Special  Creation  view,  and  in  his  second 
period,  especially  between  1761  and  1766,  the 
extreme  transmutation  view,  he  returned  finallv 
to  the  moderate  view,  that  species  were  neither 
fixed  nor  mutable,  but  that  specific  types  could 
assume  a  great  variety  of  forms. 

In  his  theory  of  Evolution,  considering  tempera- 
ture, climate,  food,  and  capillarity  as  the  three 
causes  of  change,  alteration,  and  degeneration  of 
animals,  he  does  not  employ  the  terms  heredity  or 
transmission  of  acquired  characters,  although  it  is 
evident  that  these  factors  are  implied.  In  other 
words,  Quatrefages  points  out,  Buffon  did  not  follow 
his  theory  into  its  details. 

He  also  failed  to  reach  the  phyletic  or  branching 


J 


^>  - 


ERASMUS  DARWIN.  130 

idea  of  Evolution.  He  expressly  says  that  the  re- 
lations of  species  furnish  a  problem  beyond  our 
reach :  — 

"  Nous  ne  pourrions  nous  prononcer  plus  affirmativement  si  les 
limites  qui  s^parent  les  especes,  ou  la  chaine  qui  les  unit,  nous 
^taient  mieux  connues ;  mais  qui  peut  avoir  suivi  la  grande  filia- 
tion de  toutes  les  genealogies  dans  la  nature  ?  II  faut  etre  n^  avec 
elle  et  avoir  pour  ainsi  dire,  des  observations  contemporaines." 

Buff  on  thus  left  untouched  many  problems  for 
his  successors,  Erasmus  Darwin,  Lamarck,  and 
Goethe. 

Erasmus  Darwin  (i 731-1802),  grandfather  of 
the  great  naturalist,  is  one  of  the  most  interesting 
figures  in  our  present  history.  In  his  volumes  of 
verse  we  find  that  he  is  one  of  the  poets  of  the  Evo- 
lution idea,  following  Empedocles  and  Lucretius, 
and  followed  by  the  greater  poet  Goethe.  In  the 
Temple  of  N attire,  published  after  his  death,  in  the 
year  1802  memorable  for  coincidences,  he  gives  in 
poetical  form  the  ideas  which  had  matured  during 
the  last  ten  years  of  his  life.  His  earlier  writings 
were  the  Botanic  Garden  and  Loves  of  the  Plants, 
two  volumes  of  verse  completed  and  publislied 
about  1788,  and  his  Zoononiia,  a  large  medico- 
philosophical  w^ork  published  in    1794. 

We  owe  to  Dr.  Ernst  Krause  a  careful  study  of 
the  works  of  Erasmus  Darwin,  originally  published 
in  Kosmos,  and  subsequently  republished  in  I^ig- 
lish,  with  a  biography  of  Erasmus  Darwin  written 


140      EVOLUTIONISTS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

by  Charles  Darwin.  Krause  has  selected  from  the 
Temple  of  Nature  many  verses  showing  Dr.  Dar- 
win's views  of  Evolution,  and  opening  with  his 
belief  in  the  Greek  doctrine  of  the  spontaneous 
orimn  of  life,  which  we  have  seen  revived  during 
the  eighteenth  century  in  so  many  extravagant 
forms,  but  which  Dr.  Darwin  restricts  to  the  lowest 
organisms  : 

"  Hence  without  parents,  by  spontaneous  birth, 
Rise  the  first  specks  of  animated  earth. 

•  *  •  *  .         *  •  • 

Organic  Ufe  beneath  the  shoreless  waves 
Was  born  and  nurs'd  in  ocean's  pearly  caves ; 
First,  forms  minute,  unseen  by  spheric  glass, 
Move  on  the  mud,  or  pierce  the  watery  mass ; 
These,  as  successive  generations  bloom, 
New  powers  acquire  and  larger  limbs  assume  ; 
Whence  countless  groups  of  vegetation  spring, 
And  breathing  realms  of  fin  and  feet  and  wing." 

Then,  in  the  transition  from  sea  to  dry  land, 
came  the  amphibious,  and  finally  the  terrestrial 
forms  of  life.  Gradually  new  powers  are  acquired. 
In  these  metamorphoses.  Dr.  Darwin  does  not  re- 
vive the  fancies  of  such  writers  as  De  Maillet,  but 
illustrates  his  views  by  changes  such  as  those  seen 
in  the  development  from  the  tadpole  to  the  frog. 
Passing  on,  he  speaks  of  cross-fertilization,  and 
finally  reaches  the  origin  of  Man.  We  here  find 
a  very  interesting  section.  Dr.  Darwin  quotes 
Buffon  and  Helvetius  to  the  effect  that  many  fea- 


ERASMUS  DARWIN.  I41 

tures  in  the  anatomy  of  man  point  to  a  former 
quadrupedal  position,  and  indicate  that  he  is  not 
yet  fully  adapted  to  the  erect  position ;  that,  fur- 
ther, Man  may  have  arisen  from  a  single  family  of 
monkeys  (we  here  suppose  the  family  is  used  in  the 
ordinary  sense),  in  which,  accidentally,  the  opposing 
muscle  brought  the  thumb  against  the  tips  of  the 
fingers,  and  that  this  muscle  gradually  increased  in 
size  by  use  in  successive  generations.^  Thus,  Dar- 
win calls  our  attention  to  Buffon's  anticipation  of 
the  Natural  Selection  idea  as  applied  to  man,  in 
the  survival  of  an  accidental  variation  in  a  muscle 
of  the  greatest  importance  in  the  history  of  man. 
Dr.  Darwin  devotes  a  whole  canto  to  the  human 
hand. 

"  The  hand,  first  gift  of  Heaven  !  to  man  belongs ; 
Untipt  with  claws,  the  circling  fingers  close, 
With  rival  points  the  bending  thumbs  oppose, 
Trace  the  nice  fines  of  Form  with  sense  refined, 
And  clear  ideas  charm  the  thinking  mind." 

He  passes  on  to  outline  the  development  of  the  hu- 
man faculties.  Later  he  describes  the  fierce  struggle 
for  existence,  in  verses  which  remind  us  of  Tenny- 
son's lines  upon  Nature,  red  in  tooth  and  claw. 
Not  only  do  animals  destroy  each  other  and  plants, 

^  This  recalls  the  modern  parody  :  — 

"  There  was  an  ape  in  days  that  were  earlier; 
Centuries  passed  and  his  hair  became  curlier; 
Centuries  more  and  his  thumb  gave  a  twist, 
And  he  was  a  man  and  a  Positivist." 


142       EVOLUTIONISTS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

but  even  the  plants  struggle  among  themselves  for 
soil,  moisture,  air,  and  light,  and  he  connects  this 
with  the  idea  which  we  have  already  seen  expressed 
by  Buffon  and  Malthus,  that  this  struggle  checks 
the  naturally  rapid  increase  of  life,  and  thus  is  ad- 
vantaoreous  and  beneficial  in  the  end.  As  Dr. 
Krause  points  out,  Darwin  just  misses  the  connec- 
tion between  this  struggle  and  the  Survival  of  the 
Fittest. 

These  passages  show  that  Dr.  Darwin  was  at  the 
last  —  that  is  in  his  latest  writings  —  a  firm  evolution- 
ist, and  that  he  had  advanced  considerably  beyond 
the  tentative  views  expressed  many  years  before  in 
the  Zoonomia  and  Botanic  Garden.  Krause,  in  his  ad- 
mirable biography,  does  not,  however,  give  Darwin's 
predecessors  sufficient  credit ;  his  ideas,  it  is  true, 
were  largely  gathered  from  his  own  notes  as  a  phy- 
sician and  as  a  lifelong  observer  of  Nature,  but  they 
indicate  also  a  very  careful  reading  of  Leibnitz,  as 
in  his  allusion  to  the  change  of  genera  in  the  Am- 
monites ;  to  Buffon,  as  in  ideas  connected  with  the 
struggle  for  existence  and  variations  under  artificial 
selection ;  to  Linn^us,  Blumenthal,  and  others. 
As  to  the  origin  of  life,  he  drew  from  the  Greeks, 
especially  from  Aristotle,  limiting  spontaneous  gen- 
eration, however,  to  the  lowest  organisms  ;  they  also 
gave  him  the  fundamental  idea  of  Evolution,  for  he 
says,  "  This  idea  of  the  gradual  formation  and  im- 
provement of  the  Animal  world  seems  not  to  have 
been  unknown  to  the  ancient  philosophers."     His 


ERASMUS  DARWIN.  1 43 

general  philosophy  of  Nature,  as  under  the  opera- 
tion of  natural  laws  rather  than  of  the  supernatural, 
he  himself  in  the  Zoonomia  attributes  to  David 
Hume. 

Dr.  Darwin's  theory  of  the  causes  of  Evolution 
was  not  similar  to  Buffon's,  for  he  nowhere  lays 
stress  upon  the  modifications  induced  by  the  direct 
action  of  Environment;  on  the  other  hand,  he  be- 
lieved that  modifications  spring  from  within  by  the 
reactions  of  the  organism ;  thus  he  fully  anticipated 
what  is  now  known  as  the  Lamarckian  theory,  and 
extended  it  even  further  than  Lamarck,  since  he  en- 
dowed plants  with  sensibility  and  attributed  their 
evolution  to  their  own  efforts  towards  the  attain- 
ment of  certain  structures.  His  view  of  the  oriirin 
of  adaptations  or  of  design  in  Nature  was  thor- 
oughly naturalistic,  believing  that  adaptations  had 
not  been  specially  created,  but  that  they  had  been 
naturally  and  gradually  acquired  by  powers  of  de- 
velopment planted  within  the  original  organisms  by 
the  Creator. 

In  a  defence  of  Lamarck's  originality,  Ouatrc- 
fages  mistakenly  attributes  to  Dr.  Darwin  the  theory 
of  an 'inherent  perfecting  tendency';  but  this  we 
find  is  an  entire  misconception.  Let  us,  therefore, 
carefully  examine  Dr.  Darwin's  theory  as  expounded 
in  the  chapter  ' Generation  '  of  the  Zoonomia.  \\\ 
this  chapter  he  combats  Bonnets  doctrine  of 
emboitemeiit,  and  defends  the  idea  of  individual 
development  by  successive  additions  of  parts  to  the 


144      EVOLUTIONISTS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

embryo.  In  the  original  formation  of  the  embryo 
he  rejects  the  Pangenesis  theory  of  Buffon,  that  is, 
of  the  conjugation  of  Hke  parts  from  the  two  par- 
ents. "  These  organic  particles,  he  (Mr.  Buffon) 
supposes  to  exist  in  the  spermatic  fluids  of  both 
sexes,  and  that  they  are  derived  thither  from  every 
part  of  the  body,  and  must  therefore  resemble,  as  he 
supposes,  the  parts  from  whence  they  are  derived." 
He  substitutes  for  this  a  theory  of  his  own,  of  the 
addition  of  parts,  which  takes  little  account  of  the 
laws  of  heredity. 

The  individual  life  begins,  as  all  life  originally  be- 
gan, from  a  single  filament.  "  Shall  we  conjecture," 
he  says,  "that  one  and  the  same  kind  of  living  fila- 
ment is  and  has  been  the  cause  of  all  orofanic  life  t 
.  .  .  I  suppose  this  living  filament,  of  whatever 
form  it  may  be,  whether  sphere,  cube,  or  cylinder,  to 
be  endowed  with  the  capability  of  being  excited  into 
action  by  certain  kinds  of  stimulus."  This  irrita- 
bility and  excitability  is  the  first  step  in  Darwin's 
conception  of  Evolution.  •  It  is  that  whereby  ani- 
mals and  plants  react  to  their  environment,  causingi 
changes  in  their  own  structure,  and  these  changes 
are  transmitted  to  their  offspring. 

In  this  chapter  upon  Generation,  he  throws  out 
a  wealth  of  suggestion  and  inquiry  which  indicates 
a  thorough  appreciation  of  the  problems  which 
were  yet  to  be  solved,  as  well  as  of  the  broadest 
aspects  of  Evolution.  He  touches  upon  Embry- 
ology,   Comparative    Anatomy,    the    Colouring   of 


ERASMUS  DARWIN. 


145 


Animals,  Artificial  Selection,  and  treats  Environ- 
ment almost  in  its  broadest  sense.  We  may  briefly 
follow  the  outline  of  his  argument  for  Evolution  in 
the  Zoo7iomia.     He  says :  — 

"  When  we  revolve  in  our  minds  the  metamorphoses  of  ani- 
mals, as  from  the  tadpole  to  the  frog ;  secondly,  the  changes 
produced  by  artificial  cultivation,  as  in  the  breeds  of  horses,  dogs, 
and  sheep  ;  thirdly,  the  changes  produced  by  conditions  of  climate 
and  of  season,  as  in  the  sheep  of  warm  climates  being  covered 
with  hair  instead  of  wool,  and  the  hares  and  partridges  of  northern 
climates  becoming  white  in  winter :  when,  further,  we  observe 
the  changes  of  structure  produced  by  habit,  as  seen  especially  in 
men  of  different  occupations ;  or  the  changes  produced  by  artifi- 
cial mutilation  and  prenatal  influences,  as  in  the  crossing  of 
species  and  production  of  monsters ;  fourth,  when  we  obser\'e  the 
essential  unity  of  plan  in  all  warm-blooded  animals,  —  we  are  led  to 
conclude  that  they  have  been  alike  produced  from  a  similar  living 
filament." 

Havinof  thus  discussed  some  of  the  most  obvious 
arguments  for  mutability,  he  proceeds  to  speculate 
upon  the  causes  of  these  changes.  "  Fifthly,"  he 
says,  "  all  animals  undergo  transformations  which 
are  in  part  produced  by  their  own  exertions,  in  re- 
sponse to  pleasures  and  pains,  and  many  of  these 
acquired  forms  or  propensities  are  transmitted  to 
their  posterity T 

This,  so  far  as  I  know,  is  the  first  clear  and 
definite  statement  of  the  theory  of  the  transmission 
of  acquired  characters  considered  as  one  of  the  fac- 
tors of  Evolution.  We  will  now  continue  to  ex- 
amine  Darwin's  argument,  and  later  will   illustrate 


146       EVOLUTIONISTS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

his  application  of  his  theory.  He  proceeds  to  dis- 
cuss the  wants  of  animals,  arranging  them  first 
under  the  head  of  sexual  characters,  as  horns, 
spurs,  developed  for  purposes  of  combat  and  pro- 
curing the  females.  Thus,  the  horns  of  the  stag 
have  not  been  developed  to  protect  him  from  the 
boar,  but  from  other  stags.  He  here  misses  the 
idea  of  the  sexual  selection  of  the  horns  developed 
as  ornaments  to  the  male.  Other  organs,  he  says, 
are  developed  in  the  search  for  food.  Cattle  have 
acquired  rough  tongues  to  pull  off  the  blades  of 
grass ;  and  of  these  and  similar  organs  he  says : 
"  All  which  seem  to  have  been  gradually  pro- 
duced during  many  generations,  by  the  perpetual 
endeavour  of  the  creatures  to  supply  the  want  of 
food,  and  to  have  been  delivered  to  their  posterity 
with  constant  improvements  for  the  purpose  re- 
quired." Again  he  says :  "  There  are  organs  devel- 
oped for  protective  purposes,  diversifying  both  the 
form  and  colour  of  the  body  for  concealment  and  for 
combat."  He  here  definitely  unfolds  the  idea  of 
protective  colouring. 

He  closes  his  long  argument  by  pointing  out  the 
close  gradations  in  Nature  from  the  higher  to  the 
lower  forms,  and  the  substantial  similarity  between 
the  animal  and  vegetable  kingdoms  in  their  modes 
of  generation  or  reproduction,  and  concludes  as 
follows  :  — 

"  From  thus  meditating  upon  the  minute  portion  of  time  in 
which  many  of  the  above  changes  have  been  produced,  would  it 


ERASMUS  DARWIN.  I  .-r 

be  too  bold  to  imagine,  in  the  great  length  of  time  since  the 
earth  began  to  exist,  perhaps  millions  of  ages  before  the  com- 
mencement of  the  history  of  mankind,  that  all  warm-blooded  ani- 
mals have  arisen  from  one  living  filament,  which  the  first  great 
Cause  imbued  with  animality,  with  the  power  of  acciuiring  new 
parts,  attended  with  new  propensities,  directed  by  irritations,  sen- 
sations, volitions,  and  associations,  and  thus  possessing  the  faculty 
of  continuing  to  improve  by  its  own  inherent  activity,  and  of  de- 
livering down  those  improvements  by  generation  to  posterity,  world 
without  end  ?  " 

We  must  remember  in  reading  this  sentence  that 
by  generation  Darwin  means  inheritance,  heredity 
being  a  term  which  was  introduced  much  later.  If 
we  analyze  this  sentence,  we  see  that  it  involves, 
first,  a  clear  idea  of  the  evolution  of  all  forms  of 
life  from  a  single  filament  or  minute  organic  mass, 
as  we  should  express  it  to-day,  —  a  minute  mass  of 
protoplasm;  second,  that  this  evolution  has  occu- 
pied millions  of  years  and  has  been  controlled  not 
by  supernatural  causes  but  by  natural  causes.  The 
directing  power  to  which  he  alludes  has  sprung 
from  its  efforts  to  meet  its  new  needs  in  course  of 
its  changing  environment.  For  it  is  clear  from  the 
context  that  by  the  term  'inherent  activity,'  Dar- 
win does  not  allude  to  an  automatic  perfecting  prin- 
ciple such  as  we  find  originated  with  Aristotle,  but 
that  the  power  of  improvement  rests  with  the  ani- 
mal's own  efforts,  the  effects  of  these  efforts  u])on 
the  body  being  transmitted.  Darwin  seems  to  feel 
that  he  may  be  charged  with  irreverence  in  thus 
substitutino:  the  idea  of  Evolution  for  that  of  Spec- 


148       EVOLUTIONISTS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

ial  Creation ;  he  meets  this  by  establishing  his 
hypothesis  upon  a  basis  of  natural  causation  or 
secondary  causes,  and  says  :  — 

"For  if  we  may  compare  infinities,  it  would  seem  to  require  a 
greater  infinity  or  power  to  cause  the  causes  of  effects,  than  to 
cause  the  effects  themselves ;  that  is,  to  estabUsh  the  laws  of  Cre- 
ation rather  than  to  directly  create." 

There  are  many  single  passages  which  further 
illustrate  Darwin's  ideas.  It  is  first,  perfectly  clear ^ 
that  he  derives  all  forms  of  life  from  a  single  fila- 
ment, which  we  may  translate  into  a  single  proto- 
plasmic mass.  Upon  this,  however,  he  does  not 
build  a  branching  or  phyletic  system  of  Evolution, 
but  simply  leaves  this  part  of  the  system  out,  and 
passes  on  to  illustrations  of  the  causes  and  laws  of 
Evolution.  As  pointed  out  above,  his  fundamental 
idea  is  what  has  since  been  called  '  Archaesthetism ' 
by  Cope.  According  to  this,  growth  is  stimulated 
by  irritability  and  sensibility,  or  in  Darwin's  lan- 
guage—  in  the  passage  upwards  from  the  original 
filament.:  "  The  most  essential  parts  of  the  system 
are  first  formed  by  the  irritations  (of  hunger,  thirst, 
etc.,  above  mentioned)  and  by  the  pleasurable  sen- 
sations attending  those  irritations,  and  by  exertions 
in  consequence  of  painful  sensations,  similar  to 
those  of  hunger  and  suffocation.  ...  In  confir- 
mation of  these  ideas,  it  may  be  observed  that  all 
parts  of  the  body  endeavour  to  grow  or  to  make 
additional  parts  of  themselves  throughout  our  lives." 
{Zoo7iomia^  XXXIX.  3.) 


ERASMUS  DARWIN.  I^q 

I  have  carefully  searched  for  these  passages,  and 
find  a  most  striking  confirmation  of  Charles  Dar- 
win's well-known  sentence:  "It  is  curious  how 
largely  my  grandfather,  Dr.  Erasmus  Darwin,  antic- 
ipated the  views  and  erroneous  grounds  of  opinion 
of  Lamarck  in  his  Zoono7niar  Among  the  pas- 
sages above  quoted,  and  in  those  following,  we  find 
the  whole  framework  and  even  in  part  the  very 
language  of  Lamarck's  Four  Laws. 

Dr.  Darwin  again  illustrates  his  theory,  speaking 
of  the  Evolution  of  Man :  — 


"Now  as  labour  strengthens  the  muscles  employed  and  in- 
creases their  bulk,  it  would  seem  that  a  few  generations  of  labour 
or  indolence  may  in  this  respect  change  the  form  and  tempera- 
ment of  the  body."  {Zoonomia,  pp.  356,  501.)  "Add  to  these 
the  various  changes  produced  in  the  forms  of  mankind  by  their 
early  modes  of  exertion  .  .  .  which  became  hereditary." 

On  the  following  page  he  applies  the  law  of 
transmission  of  acquired  characters  to  the  lower 
animals.  After  speaking  of  the  snout  of  the  pig, 
the  trunk  of  the  elephant,  the  rough  tongues  of 
cattle,  and  beaks  of  birds,  he  says :  — 

"  All  which  seem  to  have  been  gradually  produced  during  many 
generations  by  the  perpetual  endeavour  of  the  creatures  to  supply 
the  want  of  food,  and  to  have  been  delivered  to  their  posterity 
with  constant  improvement  of  them  for  the  purposes  acquired." 

As  regards  the  origin  of  plants,  he  at  one  point 
mentions  the  suggestion  of  Linna:us:  "And  that 
from  thence,  as  Linnaeus  has  conjectured  in  respect 


150       EVOLUTIONISTS  OF  THE  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY. 

to  the  vegetable  world,  it  is  not  impossible  but  the 
great  variety  of  species  of  animals  which  now  ten- 
ant the  earth,  may  have  had  their  origin  from  the 
mixture  of  a  few  natural  orders."  Elsewhere  he 
speaks  of  plants  as  having  arisen  in  the  contest  for 
light  and  air.  He  carries  the  idea  of  sensibility  and 
irritability  into  plant  life,  and  his  theory  of  plant 
evolution  is  similar  to  that  of  animal  evolution. 

Erasmus  Darwin  was,  however,  fully  conscious 
of  the  limitations  of  his  theory  of  Evolution  ;  for  in 
speaking  of  protective  colouring  (p.  510),  he  says: 
"  The  final  cause  of  these  colours  is  readily  under- 
stood, as  they  serve  some  purpose  of  the  animal,  but 
the  efficient  cause  would  seem  almost  beyond  con- 
jecture." The  same  question  we  have  seen  pro- 
pounded by  Kant  at  about  the  same  period :  "  How 
can  purposeful  forms  of  organization  arise  without 
a  purposeful  working  cause }  How  can  a  work  full 
of  design  build  itself  up  without  a  design  and  with- 
out a  builder  }  "  Of  course  we  do  not  know  whether 
Darwin  had  this  suggested  to  him  by  Kant,  but  it 
is  exceedingly  interesting  to  see  him  so  clearly  state 
the  old,  old  problem  which  his  grandson  later  largely 
solved. 

While  this  chapter  on  Generation  is  a  compara- 
tively small  part  of  the  Zooiiomia,  we  learn  that  it 
attracted  much  attention  at  the  time.  Dr.  McCosh 
tells  the  writer  that  he  read  the  work  while  in  Edin- 
burgh. It  made  a  considerable  sensation,  and  was 
replied  to  by  Thomas   Brown,  M.D.      This  reply, 


ERASMUS  DARWIN.  I51 

together  with  his  article  upon  "  Cause  and  Effect," 
won  for  Dr.  Brown  the  professorship  of  Moral  Phi- 
losophy in  the  University.  We  see,  therefore,  that 
in  England,  as  we  shall  see  in  France,  the  adherents 
of  the  Evolution  doctrine  found  the  spirit  of  the 
Universities  hostile;  and  as  we  pass  from  man  to 
man  in  these  outlines  of  the  Evolution  idea,  select- 
ing certain  paragraphs  and  ignoring  all  the  contem- 
porary literature,  we  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact 
that  the  major  weight  of  opinion  was,  throughout 
all  this  period,  upon  the  side  of  Special  Creation. 
For  one  argument  like  Dr.  Darwin's  upon  the 
gradual  development  side,  there  were  hundreds 
upon  the  side  of  sudden  production. 


V. 

FROM  LAMARCK  TO  ST.  HILAIRE. 

Ainsi,  la  ?tature,  toujours  agissante,  toujours  impassible,  renouvelant  et  vari- 
ant toute  espece  de  corps,  n'en  preservant  aucun  de  la  destruction,  nous  offre  une 
scene  imposante  et  sans  terme,  et  nous  montre  en  elle  une  puissance  particuliere 
qui  n'agit  que  par  necessite.  —  LAMARCK. 

We  have  now  come  to  an  important  step  in  the 
history  of  the  Evolution  theory ;  that  is,  the  rela- 
tion of  Erasmus  Darwin  to  Lamarck.  We  shall  see, 
in  treating  Lamarck,  that  the  parallelism  between 
the  line  of  reasoning  of  these  two  men  is  very  strik- 
ing. They  not  only  used  the  same  illustrations,  but 
almost  the  same  language ;  and  by  putting  together 
various  passages  from  Darwin's  writings,  we  can  re- 
construct, almost  verbatim,  the  four  principles  of 
Lamarck.  Darwin's  work  was  published  in  1794 
while  as  Huxley  points  out,  in  his  Recherches  sur 
Ics  causes  des  principaux  fails  physiques,  written  in 
I  776,  but  not  published  until  1 794,  Lamarck  adopted 
Buffon's  maturer  and  more  conservative  views,  as 
shown  in  the  following  sentence  :  — 

All  the  individuals  of  this  nature  are  derived  from  similar  indi- 
viduals, which  altogether  constitute  the  entire  species.  ...  If 
there  exist  many  varieties  produced  by  the  action  of  environment, 
these  varieties  do  not  degenerate  to  the  point  of  forming  new 
species.  .  .  . 

It  was  not  until  1801,  seven  years  after  the  publi- 
cation of  the  Zoono7nia,  that  Lamarck  published  his 

152 


E.   DARWIN  AND   LAMARCK.  \Z 


:)j 


theory  of  the  mutabiHty  of  species,  and  this  theory 
had  two  main  features,  namely,  that  animals  were 
evolved,  not,  as  Buffon  supposed,  by  the  direct  exter- 
nal action  of  environment,  but  by  environment  acting 
upon  internal  structure  through  the  nervous  svstcm, 
and  by  the  transmission  of  the  modifications  thus 
produced.  As  regards  the  origin  of  plants,  Lamarck 
believed  with  Buffon,  that  they  were  evolved  bv  the 
direct  action  of  environment.  Lamarck  nowhere 
makes  any  allusion  to  the  Zoonomia,  and  De  Lanes- 
san  has  pointed  out  that  he  also  pays  a  very  scant 
tribute  to  Buffon,  while  there  is  the  strongest  inter- 
nal evidence  that  Lamarck  was  largely  influenced 
by  the  writings  of  Buffon's  second  period. 

How  shall  we  explain  this  coincidence  or  appar- 
ent plagiarism  .f*  We  must  adopt  one  of  two  alter- 
natives. One  is,  as  later  in  the  famous  and  quite 
as  closely  parallel  Wallace-Darwin  case,  that  both 
naturalists  arrived  independently  at  the  same  con- 
clusions, influenced  alike  by  the  writings  of  Linnanis 
and  Buffon  and  by  their  own  observations  uj)()n 
Nature ;  or,  we  must  suppose  that  Lamarck  bor- 
rowed freely  from  Darwin  without  giving  him  credit. 
We  should  hesitate  before  adopting  the  latter  alter- 
native, when  we  consider  that  the  interchange  of 
thouo-ht  between  the  two  countries  was  not  as 
constant  as  at  present,  also  that  Dr.  Darwin's  views 
were  buried  rather  obscurely  in  a  great  quarto 
mainly  devoted  to  medicine,  and  in  two  long  didac- 
tic poems.     Again,  wemust  note  that  Geoffroy  St- 


154  FROM  LAMARCK   TO   ST.   HILAIRE. 

Hilaire,  while  crediting  Goethe,  Buffon,  and  others 
with  having  partly  anticipated  Lamarck,  and  giving 
a  very  complete  bibliographical  description  of  the 
subject,  nowhere  mentions  Erasmus  Darwin.  It 
does  not  seem  probable  that  Darwin's  work  could 
have  been  used  by  Lamarck,  and  have  remained 
wholly  unknown  to  St.  Hilaire.  The  dates  and  the 
points  of  internal  evidence  still  seem  to  justify 
the  suggestion  of  Charles  Darwin,  and  the  very 
strong  suspicion  of  Dr.  Krause,  that  Lamarck  was 
familiar  with  the  Zoo7tomia,  and  made  use  of  it  in 
the  development  of  his  theory. 

M.  Ch.  Martins,  the  biographer  of  Lamarck, 
calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  Laplace  supported 
Lamarck  in  the  doctrine  of  the  inheritance  of  ac- 
quired habits,  as  applied  to  the  origin  of  the  mental 
faculties  of  man ;  and  in  the  passages  quoted  by 
Martins  to  sustain  this  point,  we  have  evidence  that 
both  Laplace  and  Lamarck  anticipated  Spencer. 
We  have  seen  that  the  general  doctrine  of  transmis- 
sion of  acquired  characters  was  an  old  one.  It  had 
been  expressed  in  France  by  others,  by  De  Maillet, 
for  example.  The  most  important  testimony  in 
favour  of  Lamarck's  originality  is  his  own.  It  is  in 
a  very  striking  passage  in  the  introduction  of  the 
last  edition  of  his  Aimnaux  sans  Verfebres  (p.  2). 
This  was  Lamarck's  latest  work.     He  says:  — 

"  I  set  forth  my  general  theory.  It  deserves  close  attention  ; 
and  as  far  as  possible,  men  should  determine  how  far  I  am  well 
founded  in  all  that  I  have  written.     I  have,  in  fact,  advanced  a 


E.   DARWIN  AND  LAMARCK. 


155 


general  theory  upon  the  origin  of  Hfe  and  upon  its  modes  of  mani- 
festation, upon  the  origin  of  the  faculties,  upon  the  variations  and 
phenomena  of  organization  of  different  animals,  —  a  theory  con- 
sistent in  its  principles  and  applicable  to  all  cases.  //  is  the  first, 
so  it  seems  to  me,  which  has  been  presented,  the  ojily  theory,  there- 
fore, which  exists,  because  I  do  not  know  any  work  which  offers 
another  theory  based  upon  such  a  large  number  of  principles  and 
considerations.  This  theory  of  mine  recognizes  in  Nature  the 
power  to  produce  some  result,  in  fact,  all  the  results  we  see.  Is 
it  well  established?  Certainly,  it  seems  to  me  so;  and  all  my 
observations  tend  to  confirm  it.  Otherwise  I  would  not  publish 
it.  It  rests  with  those  who  do  not  accept  it  to  substitute  another, 
with  equally  wide  appHcation,  or  with  a  still  wider  application  to 
the  facts.     But  this  I  hardly  believe  to  be  possible." 

Upon  this  sentence  it  seems  that  we  have  satis- 
factory evidence  that  Erasmus  Darwin  and  Lamarck 
independently  evolved  their  views,  and  this  isfurtlier 
confirmed  by  a  careful  reading  of  Lamarck's  first 
exposition  of  his  theory  in  his  work  of  1802.  This 
has  very  little  similarity  with  Darwin's  form  of 
statement  or  language,  although  it  embodies  essen- 
tially the  same  theory.  To  Huxley's  rather  pointed 
question :  "  It  would  be  interesting  to  know  wliat 
was  the  occasion  of  Lamarck's  change  of  view 
between  1779  and  1802?"  —  we  may  answer  that 
this  change  was  probably  due  to  the  change  of  his 
studies  from  Botany  to  Zoology,  for  it  was  uj^on 
animal  life  that  his  theory  was  developed. 


156  from  lamarck  to  st.  hilaire. 

Lamarck. 

Lamarck  (i 744-1829),  as  the  founder  of  the 
complete  modern  theory  of  Descent,  is  the  most 
prominent  figure  between  Aristotle  and  Darwin. 
One  cannot  compare  his  Philosophie  Zoologique  witli' 
all  previous  and  contemporary  contributions  to  the 
Evolution  theory,  or  learn  the  extraordinary  diffi- 
culties under  which  he  laboured,  and  that  this  work 
was  put  forth  only  a  few  years  after  he  had  turned 
from  Botany  to  Zoology,  without  gaining  the  great- 
est admiration  for  his  genius.  No  one  has  been 
more  misunderstood,  or  judged  with  more  partiality 
by  over  or  under  praise.  The  stigma  placed  upon 
his  writings  by  Cuvier,  who  greeted  every  fresh 
edition  of  his  works  as  a  '  nouvelle  folie,'  and  the 
disdainful  allusions  to  him  by  Charles  Darwin  (the 
only  writer  of  whom  Darwin  ever  spoke  in  this 
tone),  long  placed  him  in  the  light  of  a  purely  ex- 
travagant, speculative  thinker.  Yet,  as  a  fresh  iuv 
stance  of  the  certainty  with  w^hich  men  of  science 
finally  obtain  recognition,  it  is  gratifying  to  note 
the  admiration  which  has  been  accorded  to  him  in 
Germany  by  Haeckel  and  others,  by  his  country- 
men, and  by  a  large  school  of  American  and  Eng- 
lish writers  of  the  present  day;  to  note,  further, 
that  his  theory  was  finally  taken  up  and  defended 
by  Charles  Darwin  himself,  and  that  it  forms  the 
very  heart  of  the  system  of  Herbert  Spencer. 

None  the  less,  it  is  now  a  question  under  discus- 


LAMARCK.  1-7 

sion,  whether  Lamarck's  factor  is  a  factor  in  Evohi- 
tion  at  all !  If  it  prove  to  be  no  factor,  Lamarck 
will  sink  gradually  into  obscurity  as  one  great 
figure  in  the  history  of  opinion.  If  it  prove  to  be 
a  real  factor,  he  will  rise  into  a  more  eminent  ])osi- 
tion  than  he  now  holds,  —  into  a  rank  not  far  below 
Darwin's. 

Jeanne  Baptiste  Pierre  Antoine  de  Monet,  other- 
wise   known    as    the   Chevalier   de    Lamarck,   was, 
according  to  his  biographer,  a  man  of  great  i)li\-.s- 
ical  and  moral  courage.     He  distinguished  liim^clf 
by  an  act  of  singular  bravery  in  the  army,  and,  re- 
ceiving an  injury,  re-entered  life  as  a  doctor.     He 
was  first  attracted  to  Botany  by  the  rich  flora  ob- 
served during  his  military  service  near  Monaco,  and, 
coming  to  Paris,  he  gained   Buffon's  attention,  and 
became  an  intimate  friend  of  his  household.     His 
Flore  FraiK^aise,  written  in  six  months,  was  j)rinted 
under  Buffon's  direction,  and  passed  through  manv 
editions.     This  was  a  systematic  work,  an  adapta- 
tion of  the  system  of  Linn^us  to  the  flora  of  France. 
He  seems  to    have  been  gifted   with  exceptionally 
rapid   observation,    with    great   facility    in    writing, 
and  with  unusual  powers  of  definition  and  descrip- 
tion.    At  the  age  of  forty-nine  he  was  transferred, 
under  the  Directory,  to  a  Zoological  chair  in  the 
Jardins    des     Plantes.       Lamarck    was     especially 
placed  in   charge  of  the  invertebrates,  and   at   the 
same  time  Geoffroy  St.  Hilaire  was  appointed  to  the 
care  of  the  vertebrates.     He  took  uj)  the  study  of 


158  FROM  LAMARCK   TO   ST.   HILAIRE. 

Zoology  with  such  zeal  and  success,  that  he  almost 
immediately  introduced  striking  reforms  in  classifi- 
cation. The  early  fruits  of  Lamarck's  zoological 
studies  were  not  only  a  series  of  very  valuable  addi- 
tions to  the  classification  of  animals,  such  as  the 
divisions,  Vertebrata  and  Invertebrata,  and  the 
groups,  Crustacea,  Arachnida,  and  Annelida,  but 
the  rapid  development  of  a  true  conception  of  the 
mutability  of  species,  and  of  the  great  law  of  the 
origin  of  species  by  descent. 

His  devotion  to  the  study  of  the  small  forms  of 
life,  probably  with  inferior  facilities  for  work,  for  he 
was  extremely  poor,  gradually  deprived  him  of  the 
use  of  his  eyes,  and  in  18 19  he  became  completely 
blind.  The  last  two  volumes  of  the  first  edition  of 
his  Histoire  Nattirelle  des  Animaux  sans  VertebreSy 
which  was  begun  in  18 16  and  completed  in  1822, 
was  carried  on  by  dictation  to  his  daughter,  who 
showed  him  the  greatest  affection;  after  Lamarck 
was  confined  to  his  room,  it  is  said  she  never  left  the 
house.  Lamarck  was  thus  saddened  in  his  old  age 
by  extreme  poverty  and  by  the  harsh  reception  of 
his  transmutation  theories,  in  the  truth  of  which  he 
felt  the  most  absolute  conviction. 

The  development  of  Lamarck's  views  was,  as  we 
have  seen  above,  apparently  coincident  with  his 
turning  from  Botany  to  Zoology.  His  route  of^ 
observation  lay  along  Comparative  Zoology  and 
Botany,  as  Goethe's  lay  along  the  Comparative 
Anatomy  and  Morphology  of  plants  and  animals. 


LAMARCK.  1 5Q 

It  seems  that  the  most  speculative  of  all  his  writino-s 
were  his  earlier  physical  treatises.  One  of  these 
early  works  was  his  Rccherchcs  stcr  /cs  causes  dcs 
principatix  faits  physiques,  written  in  1766,  ])rc- 
sented  to  the  Academy  in  1780,  and  published  in 
1 794,  (the  date  of  the  Zoononiia).  Here  Lamarck, 
as  we  have  seen,  affirms  his  belief  in  the  immutability 
of  species  and  strong  disbelief  in  the  theory  of  the 
spontaneous  origin  of  life,  saying  that  all  the  physi- 
cal forces  we  know,  combined,  cannot  form  a  single 
organic  being  capable  of  reproduction.  All  individ- 
uals in  organic  life  descend  from  other  individuals 
altogether  similar,  which  taken  together  constitute 
the  entire  species.  It  is  certain  from  this  that  in 
1766  Lamarck  held  views  similar  to  those  of  his 
master,  Buffon,  in  his  third  period.  It  is  possible 
that  prior  to  1794  his  ow^n  opinions  had  become 
modified,  but  that  he  had  left  his  original  manu- 
script unchanged  for  publication. 

In  his  Hydrogeologie,  published  in  1802,  he  devel- 
oped his  uniformltarlan  ideas  in  Geology  and  pro- 
posed the  term  'Biology'  for  the  sciences  of  life. 
In  the  same  year  appeared  his  Rccherchcs  sur  F Or- 
ganisation des  Corps  Vivants,  in  which  he  first 
sketches  out  his  Evolution  theory.  This  work  was 
particularly  upon  the  origin  of  the  living  body,  ui)()n 
the  causes  of  its  development,  and  its  progressive 
composition.  It  is  in  the  preface  of  this  work  that 
he  speaks  of  projecting  a  '  Physique  Terrestre,'  to 
include  three  parts :  Hydreologie,  Mctcorologie,  and 


l6o  FROM  LAMARCK    TO   ST.   HILAIRE. 

Biologie,  The  two  latter  sections  were  never  com- 
pleted. It  is  important  to  note  that  in  this  work  hei 
projects  a  scale  of  life  somewhat  similar  to  that  oi 
Bonnet  and  of  Aristotle.  This  shows  that  in  his 
mind  at  that  time,  the  history  of  life  presented  itself 
as  a  vertical  chain  of  masses  of  organisms  not  of 
species ;  so  far  as  appears,  he  had  not  then  developed 
the  branching  idea.  This  chain  he  puts  forth  to 
show  the  ' deo'radation'  or  Qrradation  from  the  hi^h- 
est  to  the  lowest  forms,  indicating  the  march  of 
Nature  in  its  progressive  developments.  Here  and 
elsewhere  Lamarck  acknowledges  his  indebtedness 
to  the  Greeks,  especially  to  Aristotle.  Two  main 
principles  are  brought  out  in  this  work  anticipating 
his  later  theory  of  the  causes  of  Evolution :  first,  it 
is  not  organs  which  have  given  rise  to  habits,  but 
habits,  modes  of  life,  and  environment  which  have 
given  rise  to  organs ;  as  illustrated  by  the  blindness 
of  the  mole,  by  the  presence  of  teeth  in  mammals, 
and  the  absence  of  teeth  in  birds.  His  second 
principle  is,  that  life  is  an  order  and  condition  of 
things  in  the  parts  of  all  bodies  w^hich  possess  it, 
which  renders  possible  all  the  organic  movements 
within. 

There  is  no  evidence  in  this  work  that  Lamarck 
had  seen  Darwin's  Zoonomia.  The  parallelism 
with  the  Zoo7iomia  comes  out  much  more  promi- 
nently in  Lamarck's  most  important  speculative 
work,  the  Philosophie  Zoologique,  published  in 
1809,  i^  which  his  earlier  views  are  developed  and 


LAMARCK.  i5j 

expanded.  This  is  characterized  by  a  clear  and 
beautiful  style,  and  by  a  logical  development  of  the 
argument,  in  which  Lamarck's  whole  scheme  of 
Evolution  is  gradually  unfolded.  His  theory  was 
never  developed  beyond  this  point,  althou-Ji  he 
restated  it  in  a  more  condensed  form  in  the  intro- 
duction to  both  editions  of  his  Histoirc  dcs  Aiii- 
maux  sans  Verfebres  between  1816  and  1S22. 

The  Philosophie  Zoologique  shows  that  three 
truths  had  now  come  to  him  from  his  labours  in 
Botany  and  Zoology,  and  presumably  from  his 
wider  readings  of  Buffon's  earlier  writings,  of 
Linnaeus,  and  of  the  Greeks,  to  whom  he  makes 
allusion.  These  are,  first,  the  certainty  that  sj)e- 
cies  vary  under  changing  external  influences; 
second,  that  there  is  a  fundamental  unity  in 
the  animal  kingdom ;  third,  that  there  is  a  ])rogres- 
sive  and  perfecting  development.  Among  the 
influences  of  environment  he  cites  the  cases  of  the 
supposed  influence  of  water  upon  plants  and  ujDon 
the  lower  animals;  the  influence  of  air  in  forming 
the  entire  respiratory  system  of  birds;  the  influence 
of  light  upon  plants,  directly  upon  the  colouring  of 
animals,  and  upon  the  development  and  degenera- 
tion of  eyes,  and  the  influences  of  heat.  The  main 
influences  come  under  the  law  of  Use  and  Disuse, 
for  he  believes  that  Nature  does  not  effect  her 
changes  directly,  but  through  the  reaction  of  ani- 
mals  to  their  environment. 

He  thus  differs  widely  from  Buffon :   "  Lack  of  em- 

M 


1 62  FROM  LAMARCK   TO  ST.   HI  LA  I  RE. 

ployment  of  an  organ  becoming  constant  under  the 
influence  of  certain  habits,  gradually  impoverishes 
the  organ  and  ends  by  causing  it  to  disappear  en- 
tirely." In  the  Discours  preliminaire,  he  outlines 
his  work  as  divided  into  three  parts.  The  first  is 
to  treat  of  the  subject  in  general,  of  methods  of  re- 
search, of  artificial  distinctions  raised  by  man  in 
classification,  of  the  real  meaning  of  the  term  '  spe-i 
cies,'  of  the  proofs  of  the  'degradation'  (Evolution) 
of  organization  from  one  end  to  the  other  of  the 
animal  scale,  of  the  influences  of  environment  and 
habit  as  causes  favouring  or  arresting  the  develop- 
ment of  animals,  of  the  natural  order  and  classifica- 
tion of  animals.  In  this  first  section  his  whole 
theory  of  Evolution  is  to  be  expanded,  which  we 
will  examine  later.  In  the  second  part,  he  considers 
the  essential  phenomena  and  physiological  condi- 
tions of  life  or  '  orgasme '  and  irritability,  of  the 
peculiarities  of  cellular  tissue,  of  the  conditions 
of  spontaneous  generation.  This  section  covers 
w^hat  we  would  now  term  the  general  principles  of 
Biology.  The  third  part  is  devoted  to  the  develop- 
ment of  the  nervous  system,  sensation,  action,  and 
intelligence,  including  a  theory  of  the  origin  and 
formation  of  the  nerves,  and  of  the  development  of 
mental  faculties  and  ideas,  lower  and  higher.  Here 
he  treats  of  the  relation  of  the  mind  of  man  to  that 
of  the  lower  animals. 

Lamarck's  general  philosophy  of  Nature  comes 
forth  here.     He  is,  first  of  all,  an  advocate  of  the 


LAMARCK.  163 

search  for  secondary  causes,  as   opposed  to  arrest 
with  supernatural  causation.      He  believes  that  we 
see  in  Nature  a  certain  order  originally  imposed  by 
its  Author,  which  is  manifested  in  the  successive  de- 
velopment of  life;    we  thus  study  natural  forces  and 
Nature  abandoned  to  its  laws.     In  this  sense   we 
see  Nature  creating  and  developing  without  cessa- 
tion   towards    higher  and  higher   types.     Mxternal 
conditions  do  not  alter  this  order  of  development, 
but  give  it  infinite  variety  by  directing  the  scale  of 
being  into  an  infinite  number  of  branches.  Lamarck 
denied,  absolutely,  the  existence  of  any  'perfecting 
tendency '  in  Nature,  and  regarded  Evolution  as  the 
final  necessary  effect  of  surrounding  conditions  on 
life.      Thus,  in  his  Teleology,  he  adopted  the  mod- 
ern standpoint.     Instead  of  suggesting  that  animals 
had  been  created  for  a  certain  mode  of  life,  he  suj)- 
posed  that  their  mode  of  life  had  itself  created  them. 
Wings  were  not  given  to  birds  to  enable  them  to 
fly,  but  they  had  developed  wings  in  attempting  to 

fly. 

In  his  discussion  of  Evolution  in  general,  in  the 
section,  ' De  FOrdre  naturel  dcs  Aniniaux,'  he 
says : — 

"  In  considering  the  natural  order  of  animals,  the  very  positive 
gradation  which  exists  in  their  structure,  organization,  and  in  the 
number  as  well  as  in  the  perfection  of  their  faculties,  is  very  far 
removed  from  being  a  new  truth,  because  the  Greeks  tlK-msclves 
fully  perceived  it ;  but  they  were  unable  to  expose  the  princij^les 
and  the  proofs  of  this  evolution,  because  they  lacked  the  knowl- 


164  FROM  LAMARCK   TO   ST.   NIL  A  IRE. 

edge  necessary  to  establish  it.  In  consideration  of  this  gradation 
of  life,  there  are  only  two  conclusions  which  face  us  as  to  its 
origin  :  —  The  cofic/iisiofi  adopted  up  to  to-day :  Nature  (or  its 
Author)  in  creating  animals  has  foreseen  all  possible  sorts  of  cir- 
cumstances in  which  they  would  be  destined  to  live,  and  has  given 
to  each  species  a  constant  organization,  as  well  as  a  form  deter- 
mined and  invariable  in  its  parts,  which  forces  each  species  to  live 
in  the  places  and  climates  where  it  is  found,  and  there  to  preserve 
the  habits  which  we  know  belong  to  it.  My  personal  conclusion  : 
Nature,  in  producing  successively  all  the  species  of  animals,  and 
commencing  by  the  most  imperfect  or  the  most  simple  to  con- 
clude its  labour  in  the  most  perfect,  has  gradually  completed  their 
organization ;  and  of  these  animals,  while  spreading  generally  in 
all  the  habitable  regions  of  the  globe,  each  species  has  received, 
under  the  influence  of  environment  which  it  has  encountered,  the 
habits  which  we  recognize  and  the  modifications  in  its  parts  which 
observation  reveals  in  it." 

The  first  conclusion  (Special  Creation),  he  goes 
on  to  say,  is  one  which  has  been  held  by  nearly 
every  one  up  to  the  present  time.  It  attributes  to 
each  animal  a  constancy  of  structure,  and  parts 
which  have  never  varied  and  will  never  vary.  To 
disprove  the  second  conclusion  (Evolution),  he  con- 
tinues, it  is  necessary  to  prove,  first,  that  each  point 
upon  the  surface  of  the  globe  never  varies  in  its 
nature,  climate,  exposure,  elevation,   and   so  forth. 

The  belief  in  the  uniformity  of  past  and  present 
changes  was  the  next  great  factor  in  the  develop- 
ment of  Lamarck's  theory.  It  arose  from  his  con- 
templation  of  the  data  of  Geology  in  connection 
with  those  of  Biology,  as  was  afterwards  the  case 
with  Darwin,  in  so  marked  a  degree.    In  Geology  he 


LAMARCK. 


165 


was  an  ardent  advocate  of  the  doctrine  of  uniform- 
ity, as  against  the  cataclysmal  school.  The  main 
principles  are  laid  down  in  his  Hydrogeologic,  that 
all  the  revolutions  of  the  earth  are  extremely  slow. 
"For  Nature,"  he  says,  "time  is  nothini;.  It  is 
never  a  difficulty,  she  always  has  it  at  her  disj)osal ; 
and  it  is  for  her  the  means  by  which  she  has  accom- 
plished the  greatest  as  well  as  the  least  of  her 
results.  For  all  the  evolution  of  the  earth  and  of 
living  beings,  Nature  needs  but  three  elements,  — 
'  space,  time,  and  matter."  Lamarck,  unlike  I)uffon, 
did  not  touch  Cosmogony ;  but  in  his  observations 
upon  Geology  he  learnt,  the  first  of  all  lessons,  that 
in  speculating  upon  the  past  we  should  not  regard 
it  as  a  period  of  catastrophe,  that  the  true  method 
of  study  is  to  observe  the  steady  march  of  Nature 
at  the  present  time  ;  for  its  present  operations  suffice 
to  explain  all  the  facts  which  we  observe  in  all  its 
past.  This  led  Lamarck  to  the  extreme  of  denying 
all  catastrophes  in  Geology,  and  all  leaps  or  sudden 
transitions  in  living  Nature.  "  Nature,"  he  repeats, 
"  to  perfect  and  to  diversify  animals  requires  merely 
matter,  space,  and  time." 

After  this  review  of  Lamarck's  self-education, 
intellectual  equipment,  and  the  influences  of  his 
collateral  studies,  we  come  to  his  theory  of  the  fac- 
tors and  nature  of  the  Evolution  of  life,  which  were 
first  fully  expressed  in  the  Philosophic  Zoologiquc, 
and  formulated  later  in  the  Histoire  Naturcllc  into 
the  four  well-known  propositfons  :  — 


1 66  FROM  LAMARCK   TO   ST.   HI  LAI  RE. 

First  Law.  —  Life  by  its  internal  forces  tends 
continually  to  increase  the  volume  of  every  body 
that  possesses  it,  as  well  as  to  increase  the  size  of 
all  the  parts  of  the  body  up  to  a  limit  which  it 
brings  about. 

Second  Law.  —  The  production  of  a  new  organ 
or  part  results  from  a  new  need  or  want,  which 
continues  to  be  felt,  and  from  the  new  movement 
which  this  need  initiates  and  causes  to  continue. 
(This  is  the  psychical  factor  in  his  theory,  which 
Cope  later  has  termed  Archaesthetism.) 

Third  Law.  —  The  development  of  organs  and 
their  force  or  power  of  action  are  always  in  direct 
relation  to  the  employment  of  these  organs.  (At 
another  point  he  expands  this  into  two  sub-laws : 
"  In  every  animal  which  has  not  passed  the  term  of 
its  development,  the  more  frequent  and  sustained 
employment  of  each  organ  strengthens  little  by 
little  this  organ,  develops  it,  increases  it  in  size, 
and  gives  it  a  power  proportioned  to  the  length  of 
its  employment ;  whereas  the  constant  lack  of  use 
of  the  same  organ  insensibly  weakens  it,  deteriorates 
it,  progressively  diminishes  its  powers,  and  ends  by 
causing  it  to  disappear."  This  is  now  known  as 
the  Law  of  Use  and  Disuse,  or  Kinetogenesis.) 

Fourth  Law.  —  All  that  has  been  acquired  or 
altered  in  the  organization  of  individuals  during 
their  life  is  preserved  by  generation,  and  trans- 
mitted to  new  individuals  which  proceed  from  those 
which  have  undergone  these  changes. 


LAMARCK.  jgy 

In  his  earlier  work  this  was  first  expressed  b)- 
Lamarck  as  follows:  — 

"  All  that  Nature  has  caused  individuals  to  acquire  or  lose  by 
the  influences  of  environment  to  which  they  have  been  long 
exposed,  and  consequently  by  the  influence  of  the  predominant 
employment  of  a  certain  organ,  or  by  that  of  the  continued  lack 
of  use  of  the  same  part,  — all  this  Nature  conserves  by  generation 
to  the  new  individuals  which  arise,  provided  that  these  acquired 
variations  (changements)  are  common  to  both  sexes,  or  to  those 
which  have  produced  these  new  individuals." 

This  law  is  now  known  as  'the  inheritance  of 
acquired  characters,'  or  better,  to  revive  Lamarck's 
original  idea  expressed  in  the  word  chaugcmoiis. 
we  should  call  it  the  theory  of  inlicriiaucc  of 
acquired  changes  or  variations. 

This  theory^  of  Lamarck  is  seen  to  be  substan- 
tially similar  to  that  of  Erasmus  Darwin,  and  to 
depart  widely  from  that  of  Buffon,  for  Lamarck 
does  not  follow  Buffon  in  supposing  that  environ- 
ment directly  produces  changes  in  animals,  either 
in  their  form  or  organization.     In  a  single  sentence 

^Premiere  loi.  —  La  vie,  par  ses  propres  forces,  tend  continuellement  \ 
accroitre  le  volume  de  tout  corps  qui  la  possede,  et  h  etendre  les  dimensions 
de  ses  parties,  jusqu'^.  un  terme  qu'elle  amene  elle-meme. 

Deuxieme  loi.  —  La  production  d'un  nouvel  organe  dans  un  corps  animal 
resulte  d'un  nouveau  besoin  survenu  qui  continue  de  se  faire  sentir,  ct  d'un 
nouveau  mouvement  que  ce  besoin  fait  naitre  et  entretient. 

Troisieme  loi.  —  Le  developpement  des  organes  et  leur  force  iraction  sont 
constamment  en  raison  de  I'emploi  de  ces  organes. 

Quatrihne  loi. — Tout  ce  qui  a  ete  acquis,  trace  ou  change  dans  I'organisa- 
tion  des  individus,  pendant  le  cours  de  leur  vie,  est  conserve  par  la  generation 
et  transmis  aux  nouveaux  individus  qui  proviennent  de  ceux  qui  ont  cprouve 
ces  changements. 


1 68  FROM  LAMARCK   TO   ST.    HILAIRE. 

of  the   PhilosopJiie  Zoologique  he   summarizes    his 
own  doctrine  as  follows:  — 

*'  But  great  changes  in  environment  bring  about  changes  in  the 
habits  of  animals.  Changes  in  their  wants  necessarily  bring  about 
parallel  changes  in  their  habits.  If  new  wants  become  constant 
or  very  lasting,  they  form  new  habits,  the  new  habits  involve  the 
use  of  new  parts,  or  a  different  use  of  old  parts,  which  results 
finally  in  the  production  of  new  organs  and  the  modification  of 
old  ones." 

Again,  he  says :  — 

"  Circumstances  influence  the  forms  of  animals.  But  I  must 
not  be  taken  literally,  for  environment  can  effect  no  direct  changes 
whatever  upon  the  organization  of  animals." 

He  illustrates  his  theory  in  advancing  proofs 
that  it  is  not  the  organ  which  gives  origin  to  the 
habit,  but  the  habit  which  gives  origin  to  the 
organ,  and  points  out  examples  of  the  effects  of  use 
and  disuse.  He  refers  all  rudimentary  structures 
to  disuse,  such  as  the  embryonic  teeth  of  the  whale- 
bone whales,  which  had  recently  been  discovered 
by  St.  Hilaire,  the  eyes  of  the  mole,  and  of  the 
Proteus,  the  blind  salamander  of  the  Austrian  caves. 
He  is  inconsistent  wdth  his  own  theory  when  he 
says  that  the  organ  of  hearing  has  been  developed 
everywhere  by  the  direct  action  of  vibrations  of 
sound.  Again,  he  explains  the  development  of  the 
webbed  feet  of  birds,  by  their  being  attracted  to 
swampy  ground  by  hunger,  making  efforts  to  swim, 
spreading  the  toes,  the  skin  being  thus  stretched 
between  them. 


LAMARCK.  ,5q 

His  conception  of  the  initial  causal  relation  of 
the  desires  and  wants  of  animals  is  illustrated  in 
the  following  paragraphs:  — 

"T  conceive  that  a  Gasteropod  mollusc,  which,  as  it  crawls 
along,  finds  the  need  of  touching  the  bodies  in  front  of  it,  makes 
efforts  to  touch  those  bodies  with  some  of  the  foremost  parts  of 
the  head,  and  sends  to  these  every  time  quantities  of  nervous 
fluids  as  well  as  of  other  liquids ;  I  conceive  and  say,  tiiat  it  must 
result  from  this  reiterated  afflux  towards  the  point  in  question, 
that  the  nerves  which  abut  at  these  points  will,  by  slow  degrees, 
be  extended.  Now,  as  in  the  same  circumstances,  other  fluids  of 
the  same  animal  flow  also  to  the  same  places,  and  especially  nour- 
ishing fluids,  it  must  follow  that  two  or  more  tentacles  will  appear 
and  develop  insensibly  on  the  points  referred  to." 

As  illustrating  the  sensitiveness  of  lowly  organized 
animals  to  the  action  of  evironment,  he  cites  a  series 
of  his  observations  upon  Hydra,  when  moving  about 
in  search  of  light. 

Numerous  other  examples  are  given  of  the  sup- 
posed origin  of  other  parts  of  the  body,  among  which 
we  may  select  his  account  of  the  origin  of  the  hoofs 
in  mammals : 

"All  mammals  sprang  from  saurians,  more  or  less  similar  to 
our  crocodiles.  They  first  appeared  under  the  form  of  amphib- 
ian mammals  with  four  feebly  developed  limbs.  These  j->rimi- 
tive  forms  divided  in  the  manner  according  to  which  they  {c:(\. 
Some,  accustoming  themselves  to  browse  upon  shrubs,  became  the 
source  of  the  ungulates.  Advancing  upon  the  earth,  they  experi- 
enced the  need  of  having  longer  limbs,  their  toes  became  elongated, 
and  the  habit  of  resting  upon  their  four  feet  during  the  greater 
part  of  the  day  has  caused  a  thick  horn  to  arise,  which  envelops 


I/O  FROM  LAMARCK   TO   ST.    HILAIRE. 

the  extremity  of  the  toes  of  their  feet.    The  other  mammals  re- 
mained amphibious,  Uke  the  seals." 

He  also  explains  the  origin  of  the  horns  in  the 
ruminant  animals  by  the  efforts  which  they  have 
made  to  butt  their  heads  together  in  their  periods 
of  anger ;  thus  has  been  formed  a  secretion  of  matter 
upon  the  forehead.  The  fleet  types  of  ruminants 
which  have  been  exposed  to  the  attacks  of  carnivo- 
rous animals,  have  been  obhged  to  fly,  and  have 
thus  acquired  the  habit  of  making  very  rapid  move- 
ments; thus  have  been  formed  the  types  of  Gazelle, 
Deer,  and  so  forth.  Such  crude  illustrations  cer- 
tainly could  not  predispose  his  contemporaries  in 
favour  of  his  theory. 

He  was  still  less  happy  in  his  account  of  the  liitibs 
of  snakes : 

"The  snakes  sprang  from  reptiles  with  four  extremities,  but 
having  taken  up  the  habit  of  moving  along  the  earth  and  conceal- 
ing themselves  among  bushes,  their  bodies,  owing  to  repeated 
efforts  to  elongate  themselves  and  to  pass  through  narrow  spaces, 
have  acquired  a  considerable  length  out  of  all  proportion  to  their 
width.  Since  long  feet  would  have  been  very  useless,  and  short 
feet  would  have  been  incapable  of  moving  their  bodies,  there 
resulted  a  cessation  of  use  of  these  parts,  which  has  finally  caused 
them  to  totally  disappear,  although  they  were  originally  part  of  the 
plan  of  organization  in  these  animals." 

It  is  evident  that  Lamarck  was  forced  to  give 
such  illustrations  as  these,  because,  shut  off  as  he 
was  from  experiment  and  further  observation,  they 
were  the  only  ones  which  came  within  his  range  of 


LAMARCK.  i;i 

imagination;  with  all  their  absurdities,  they  present 
a  semblance  to  the  expressions  of  some  modern 
writers. 

In  his  theory  of  Heredity,  Lamarck  postulated 
the  inheritance  of  acquired  characters,  which  we 
have  learned  to-day  is  the  crucial  point  in  his  whole 
system.  He  did  not  expand  Buffon's  theories  in 
regard  to  the  physical  basis  of  Transmission.  He 
brings  out  the  results  which  spring  from  free  inter- 
crossing, showing  that  according  to  his  theory,  in 
the  union  of  individuals  which  have  been  subjected 
to  different  environments,  the  effects  of  environment 
would  be  neutralized,  whereas  the  crossing  of  in- 
dividuals which  had  been  subjected  to  the  same 
environment  would  hasten  and  perpetuate  the  trans- 
mission of  similar  effects.  To  this  principle  he 
refers  the  fact  that  the  accidental  changes  induced 
by  the  habits  of  men  are  not  perpetuated,  since 
they  do  not  occur  in  both  parents,  whereas  the 
formation  of  distinct  races  in  widely  different  parts 
of  the  world,  is  due  to  the  uniformity  of  their 
environment. 

Lamarck  foresaw  the  great  difficulties  which  would 
arise  in  classification  from  his  theory  of  the  fihation 
and  mutability  of  all  animal  and  plant  types,  and  he 
fully  grasped  the  immediate  bearings  of  the  theory 
upon  the  definition  of  species.  He  writes  :  "  Nature 
exhibits  to  us  individuals  succeeding  each  otlier,  but 
the  species  among  them  have  only  a  relative  sta- 
bility, and  are  only  temporarily  invariable."    Ouatrc- 


1/2  FROM  LAMARCK    TO   ST.    HI  LAI  RE. 

fages  remarks  that  he  does  not  clearly  distinguish 
between  species,  races,  and  varieties. 

The  definition  of  species  was  in  Lamarck's  time 
the  test  of  the  creed  of  the  naturalist.  Isidore  St. 
Hilaire,  in  the  Histoire  Nattirelle  Generale,  gives  us 
an  interesting  outline  of  the  history  of  these  defini- 
tions, beginning  with  that  of  Linnaeus,  including 
Buffon's  earlier  and  later  definitions,  and  Cuvier  s 
later    definitions ;     Lamarck's    is    admirable : — 

"  A  species  is  a  collection  of  similar  individuals  which  are  per- 
petuated by  generation  in  the  same  condition,  as  long  as  their 
environment  has  not  changed  sufficiently  to  bring  about  variation 
in  their  habits,  their  character,  and  their  form." 

Certainly  no  better  definition  of  a  species  could 
be  given  to-day. 

We  have  seen  that  Lamarck's  final  conception  of 
filiation,  or  the  idea  of  the  branching  of  life,  had  not 
been  reached  in  1802,  in  which  he  gives  a  vertical 
scale  of  the  succession  of  groups  of  animals  quite 
similar  to  that  which  had  been  developing  on  the 
false  conception  of  phylogeny  from  the  time  of  Aris- 
totle. It  is  interesting,  therefore,  to  place,  side  by 
side,  his  first  scale  of  1802  with  that  which  he  pub- 
lished in  the  Philosophie  Zoologique,  of  1809. 


LAMARCK. 


1/3 


TABLEAU   DU   REGNE   ANIMAL  (1802). 

MOxNTRANT  LA  DEGRADATION   PROGRESSIVE  DES  0R(.ANES   SpeCIAUX 

Jusqu'a  Leur  Aneantissemext. 

Nota.  —  \j^  progression  de  la  ddgradation  n'est  nulle  part  rc%uli^-re 
ou  proportionnelle ;  mais  elle  existe  dans  Tensemble  dune  maniere 
evidente. 


Une   colonne   vertebrale,  faisant  la   base   d'un 
squelette  articuld. 


Point  de  colonne  vertdbrale ;  point  de  veritable 
squelette. 


1.  Les  Mammaux 

2.  Les  Oiseaux 

3.  Les  Reptiles 

4.  Les  Poissons 

5.  Les  Mollusques 

6.  Les  Annelides 

7.  Les  Crustac^s 

8.  Les  Arachnides 

9.  Les  Insectes 

10.  Les  Vers 

11.  Les  Radiaires 

12.  Les  Polypes 

In  1802  he  expressly  speaks  of  the  shaded  grada- 
tion in  the  complication  of  organization,  not  as  a 
lineal  series  of  species,  or  even  of  genera,  for  he 
says  such  a  series  does  not  exist.  But,  "  I  speak  of 
a  series  quite  regularly  gradated  in  its  principal 
masses;  that  is  to  say,  in  the  principal  known 
systems  of  organization.  Such  a  series  in  this  case 
certainly  offers  lateral  ramifications  in  many  direc- 
tions, the  extremities  of  which  are  truly  isolated 
points."  This  early  conception  of  Lamarck's  may 
be  compared  to  a  fir-tree  with  a  single  central  .stem 
and    radiating    branches.     He    says,  "  that    such  a 


174 


FROM  LAMARCK   TO   ST.   HILAIRE, 


natural  series  has  recently  been  denied,  and  that 
some  have  substituted  for  a  gradated  series  a  re- 
ticulated series,  in  which  animals  and  plants  are 
spread  out  as  upon  a  map.  Such  a  reticulated 
series  has  seemed  sublime  to  some  modern  writers, 
and  Hermann  has  attempted  to  add  probability 
to  it.  But  those  who  study  more  profoundly  the 
organization  of  living  bodies,  and  occupy  them- 
selves less  exclusively  with  the  consideration  of 
species,  will  see  that  this  view  will  have  to  be 
entirely  abandoned." 


TABLEAU   DU   REGNE   ANIMAL  (1809). 


U3 

<U 


a 


< 


3 

'en 


1°.  Serie  DES  Animaux 
Inarticules. 

^^^_____^__^_ A _ 

/  » 

Infusoires. 
Polypes. 


Radiaires. 


<u   J 


£ 
< 

c 

'a; 


< 


Ascidiens. 


Acephales. 
Mollusques. 


2°.   Serie  des  Animaux 
Articules. 


Annelides. 


Vers. 


Epizoaires. 


Insectes. 


Arachnides. 


Crustaces. 
Cirrhipedes. 


Poissons. 
Reptiles. 
Oiseaux. 
Mammiferes. 


This  later  conception  of  Lamarck's  of  the  tree  of 
life   as   branching,  not  as  radiating   from  a  single 


LAMARCK,  17^ 

central  stem,  but  as  branching  from  the  roots  into 
larger  and  smaller  stems,  was  first  pul^h'shcd  in 
1809.  This,  so  far  as  we  know,  was  the  first  of  the 
great  phyletic  trees,  the  construction  of  which  has 
since  occupied  so  large  a  portion  of  the  energy  of 
zoologists,  and  has  been  carried  to  the  farthest  ex- 
treme by  Haeckel. 

In  his  second  table  Lamarck  derives  the  fishes 
from  the  molluscs;  but  in  a  third  table,  pubhshed 
in  18 1 5,  while  it  is  of  the  same  branching  character, 
he  declares  that  he  can  no  longer  connect  the 
vertebrates  at  any  point  with  the  invertebrates! 
He  therefore  places  them  by  themselves,  without 
attempting  to  filiate  them.  The  third  table,  there- 
fore, represents  Lamarck's  latest  views. 

His  true  conception  of  Phylogeny  grew  out  of 
his  appreciation  of  the  fact  that  many  forms  of  life 
had  become  extinct.  He  says  {Philosophic  Zoolo- 
gique,  Chapter  3)  —  "Those  who  have  carefully 
examined  large  collections  of  species,  are  aware 
how  they  shade  into  each  other,  and  that  when  we 
find  species  which  are  apparently  isolated,  it  is  only 
because  we  have  not  yet  obtained  the  intermediate 
forms.  ...  I  do  not  wish  to  say  that  existing 
animals  form  a  simple  and  evenly  graded  series, 
but  they  form  a  branching  series,  irregularly  gra- 
dated, the  gaps  having  been  filled  by  lost  forms. 
It  follows  that  the  species  which  terminate  each 
branch  of  the  series  are  related,  upon  one  side  at 
least,    with    others    which    shade    into   them."     As 


1/6  FROM  LAMARCK   TO   ST.   HILAIRE. 

early  as  1802  he  held  that  affinities  indicate  com- 
munity of  parentage,  and  that  it  is  necessary  to 
prove  that  the  series  which  constitutes  the  animal 
scale  resides  essentially  in  the  distribution  of  the 
principal  masses  which  compose  it,  and  not  in  that 
of  the  species,  nor  even  of  the  genera.  As  we  see 
in  the  above  tables,  Lamarck's  attempts  at  recon- 
structing the  tree  of  life  were  crude,  but  consider- 
ing the  infancy  of  Paleontology  and  the  entire 
absence  of  embryological  knowledge,  his  specula- 
tions appear  more  to  his  credit.  He  supposed  that 
mammals  passed  through  amphibious  mammals  back 
to  saurians  similar  to  crocodiles.  The  seals  or 
aquatic  mammalia  gave  rise  to  the  Unguiculates  or 
clawed  animals,  and  when  the  claws  became  too 
long,  the  Carnivores  made  efforts  to  retract  them. 
Some  primitive  mammals  did  not  leave  the  water 
at  all,  but  lost  their  limbs  and  became  the  Cetacea. 
It  is  strange  that  Lamarck  grasped  the  true  idea 
of  extinction  of  the  lower  types,  but  not  of  the  higher 
types.  He  could  not  credit  the  extinction  of  such 
perfect  forms  as  the  Mastodon  or  the  Paleotherium 
by  any  of  the  forces  of  Nature,  but  believed  that 
they  had  probably  been  exterminated  by  man,  or 
that  these  species  might  still  be  found  alive  else- 
where. He  thoroughly  believed  in  the  extinction 
of  lower  types,  for  example,  of  the  Molluscs,  and 
that  the  lower  types  had  given  way  to  the  higher, 
the  ranks  of  the  lower  types  being  constantly  replen- 
ished by  incessant  creation  of  the  lowest  forms. 


LAMARCK.  lyj 

As  animals  progressed,  new  forms  were  constantly 
arising  in  the  primitive  scale.  One  of  the  strono-cst 
objections  which  Lamarck  had  to  meet,  one  which 
shows  that  his  theory  of  Transmutation  excited  a 
lively  discussion  at  the  time,  as  Darwinism  did  after- 
wards,  was  the  persistency  of  certain  lower  tyj^es. 
When  Geoffroy  St.  Hilaire  brought  back  his  rich 
collections  of  mummied  cats  and  other  animals 
from  the  tombs  of  Egypt,  and  it  was  found  that 
these  were  identical  with  the  actual  living  repre- 
sentatives of  the  same  species,  and  that  these  species 
had  existed  without  variation  between  two  and  three 
thousand  years,  it  was  considered  very  strong  evi- 
dence against  the  Transmutation  theory.  Lamarck 
replied  that  in  Egypt  there  had  been  substantially 
no  change  of  environment,  both  the  soil  and  the 
climate  had  remained  the  same  durinor  that  irreat 
period  ;  that  being  the  case,  no  new  habits  had  been 
imposed  upon  animals,  and  the  persistence  of  their 
characters  was  therefore  readily  explained. 

It  is  also  noteworthy  that  Lamarck,  adopting  for 
animals  the  indirect  action  of  environment,  adopted 
for  plants  a  theory  of  the  direct  action  of  environ- 
ment, in  the  absence  of  any  nervous  system  whereby 
these  organisms  could  respond  to  external  stimuli. 
He  thus  coincided  with  Buffon  in  regard  to  plant 
evolution.  He  cites  numerous  instances  of  rapid 
modification  by  drought,  by  change  of  habitat,  by 
cultivation,  and  concludes:  "  All  is  effected  by 
changes  undergone  in  the  nutrition    of    the  plant, 


178  FROM  LAMARCK   TO   ST.  HI  LAI  RE. 

in  its  methods  of  absorption,  and  in  its  transpira- 
tions, in  the  quantity  of  caloric,  light,  air,  and 
humidity;  finally,  in  the  superiority  which  certain 
of  its  vital  movements  can  take  on  over  others." 
In  his  transfer  from  the  study  of  Botany  to  Zool- 
ogy, Lamarck's  interests  seem  to  have  been  wholly 
weaned  from  the  study  of  plants.  He  does  not 
show  the  least  glimmering  of  the  ideas  of  the 
struggle  for  existence  among  the  plants,  and  does 
not  by  any  means  enlarge  Buffon's  ideas  upon  this 
subject. 

In  his  speculations  upon  the  origin  of  life,  La- 
marck at  first  seems  to  have  rejected  the  doctrine  of 
Abiogenesis,  but  later  (1802)  he  placed  the  origin 
and  continuous  generation  of  the  lowest  forms  of 
life  out  of  inorganic  matter,  at  the  base  of  his  scale 
of  Evolution.     He  says:  — 

"  In  the  waters  of  the  ancient  world,  and  at  the  present  time, 
very  small  masses  of  mucilaginous  matter  were  collected.  Under 
the  influences  of  light,  certain  elements,  caloric  and  electric,  entered 
these  little  bodies.  These  corpuscles  became  capable  of  taking 
in  and  exhaling  gases ;  vital  movements  began,  and  thus  an  ele- 
mental plant  or  animal  sprang  into  existence.  Possibly  higher 
forms  of  life,  such  as  infest  the  intestines,  originate  in  this  way, 
Nature  is  thus  always  creating." 

He  believed  that  by  these  little  masses  of  gelati- 
nous matter,  brought  together  by  attraction,  a  tissue 
'  cellulaire '  was  formed,  containing  gases  and  vital 
movements ;  that  these  little  forms  of  life  were  the 
original  inhabitants  of   the    globe ;    moreover,  that 


LAMARCK. 


179 


spontaneous  generation  of  these  organisms  was  still 
going  on.^ 

After  studying  Lamarck  and  finding  how  iiuich 
there  is  of  great  value  in  his  system,  \vc  have  to  re- 
cord that  he  exerted  astonishingly  little  influence, 
and,  in  France  at  least,  was  only  followed  by  a  single 
writer.  This  was  partly  due  to  the  stigma  which 
'  was  placed  upon  the  transmutation  theory,  and  the 
strong  opposition  to  Lamarck's  doctrine  by  Cuvier, 
the  most  influential  naturalist  of  the  time.  As  La- 
marck retired  from  active  life  after  the  loss  of  his 
eyesight,  he  became  a  less  and  less  known  figure ; 
he  could  take  no  direct  part  in  spreading  his  doc- 
trines, and  left  the  arena  of  discussion  open  to 
Cuvier  and  St.  Hilaire. 

Lamarck,  as  a  naturalist,  exhibited  exceptional 
powers  of  definition  and  description,  while  in  his 
philosophical  wTitings  upon  Evolution,  his  specula- 
tion far  outran  his  observations,  and  his  theory 
suffered  from  the  absurd  illustrations  which  he 
brought  forward  in  support  of  it.  It  was  such  ex- 
amples as  the  method  of  evolution  of  the  snakes, 
which  gave  Lamarck's  critics  their  opportunity  of 
throwing  all  his  ideas  into  ridicule ;  and  from  some 
of  these  brief  illustrations  his  critics  spread  the  im- 
pression that  he  believed  animals  acquired  new  or- 
gans simply  by  wishing  for  them.  His  really  sound 
speculation  in  Zoology  was  also  injured  by  his  ear- 
Her  and  thoroughly  worthless  speculation  in  Chem- 

iQken's  similar  theory  was  not  advanced  until   1S05. 


l8o  FROM  LAMARCK    TO   ST.   HI  LAIR  E. 

istry  and  other  branches  of  science.  Another 
marked  defect  was,  that  Lamarck  was  completely 
carried  away  with  the  belief  that  his  theory  of  the 
transmission  of  acquired  characters  was  adequate 
to  explain  all  the  phenomena.  He  did  not,  like  his 
contemporaries,  Erasmus  Darwin  and  Goethe,  per- 
ceive and  point  out,  that  certain  problems  in  the 
origin  of  adaptations  were  still  left  wholly  untouched 
and  unsolved.  Believing  that  he  saw  a  great  Evo- 
lution factor,  and  applying  it  to  organic  nature,  he 
was  blind  to  its  deficiencies  and  to  every  other 
factor,  and  sought  to  establish  it  as  a  sufficient  ex- 
planation of  every  change  in  the  animal  world.  His 
arguments  are,  in  most  cases,  not  inductive,  but  de- 
ductive, and  are  frequently  found  not  to  support  his 
law,  but  to  postulate  it.  Another  defect  was  his 
limited  conception  of  Natural  Environment,  in 
which  he  was  inferior  to  his  contemporary,  Trevira- 
nus.  Treviranus  and  St.  Hilaire  enlarged  upon 
Buffon's  view  of  Environment,  while  Lamarck  did 
not.  The  greatest  gap  in  his  reasoning  has  become 
obvious  since  his  time ;  namely,  that  it  turned  upon 
the  assumption  that  acquired  characters  are  inher- 
ited ;  this  he  took  for  granted  and  never  endeavoured 
to  demonstrate. 

None  the  less  we  must  close  by  placing  La- 
marck in  the  first  rank.  He  was  the  first  natur- 
alist to  become  profoundly  convinced  of  the  great 
law,  and  to  place  it  in  the  form  of  a  system ;  he 
suffered  social  and  scientific  ostracism  for  this  con- 


-/ 


GOETHE.  Igl 

viction,  maintaining  and  repeating  his  arguments  to 
his  death-bed.  There  is  a  pathetic  strain  in  the  in- 
troduction to  the  last  edition  of  his  Animaux  sans 
Vertedres :  — 

"Avant  d'atteindre  le  terme  de  mon  existence,  j'ai  pensd  que 
dans  un  nouvel  ouvrage,  susceptible  d'etre  considt^r^  comme 
une  seconde  Edition  de  mon  Systhne  des  Animaux  sans  Vertcbres^ 
je  devais  exposer  les  principaux  faits  que  j'ai  recuellis  pour  mes 
legons.  .  .  .  Ainsi  que  mes  observations  et  mes  reflexions  sur  la 
source  de  ces  faits." 

JoHANN  Wolfgang  Goethe  (i 749-1832)  was 
the  greatest  poet  of  Evolution ;  he  saw  the  law 
as  a  poet,  as  a  philosopher,  and  as  an  anatomist. 

While  making  the  most  substantial  contribu- 
tions to  the  scientific  evidences,  he  did  not,  Hke 
his  French  contemporary,  formulate  a  system.  He 
was  born  five  years  later  and  died  three  years 
earlier  than  Lamarck,  yet  never  knew  of  his  writ- 
ings. This  circumstance  Haeckel  truly  calls  a 
tragic  loss  to  science,  for  Goethe  would  have  made 
the  buried  Philosophie  Zoologiqiie  known  to  the 
w^orld. 

The  brilliant  early  achievements  of  Goethe  in 
science  afford  another  illustration  of  the  union  of 
imagination  and  powers  of  observation  as  the  essen- 
tial characteristics  of  the  naturalist.  When  he  took 
his  journey  into  Italy,  and  the  poetic  instinct  began 
to  predominate  over  the  scientific,  science  lost  a 
disciple  who  w^ould  have  ranked  among  the  very 
hio-hest,  if  not  the  hiorhest.     Of  this  time  Goethe 


1 82  FROM  LAMARCK   TO   ST.   HI  LA  I  RE. 

says :  "  I  have  abandoned  my  master  Loder  for  my 
friend  Schiller,  and  Linnaeus  for  Shakespeare." 
Yet  Goethe,  in  the  midst  of  poetry,  never  lost  his 
passion  for  scientific  studies.  He  seems  to  have 
felt  instinctively  that  what  contemporary  science 
needed  was  not  only  observation,  but  generaliza- 
tion. He  showed  his  own  power  of  scientific 
generalization  in  his  famous  studies  upon  the  meta- 
morphoses of  plants,  and  in  his  discovery  (later 
independently  reached  by  Oken)  of  the  vertebrate 
theory  of  the  skull,  which,  indeed,  was  only  a  part 
of  his  contribution  to  Comparative  Osteology  and 
Anatomy. 

His  inspiration  was  undoubtedly  drawn  partly 
from  Buffon  and  largely  from  the  school  of  German 
natural  philosophers.  He  also  imbibed  the  Greek 
influence,  and  in  his  general  view  of  Nature,  ex- 
pressed in  his  Gott  und  Welt,  we  see  the  ideas  of 
God  working  in  Nature  and  of  the  unity  of  the 
development  process.  This  he  also  brought  out  in 
the  dialogue  between  Thales  and  Anaxagoras  in 
the  Walpurgisnacht,  Here  is  unfolded  the  con- 
ception of  the  uniformity  of  past  and  present  pro- 
cesses in  Geology  and  Cosmogony.  It  is  astonish- 
ing that  Goethe  never  came  across  the  works  of 
Lamarck.  He  anticipated  Lamarck  as  an  evolution- 
ist in  his  Metamorphoses  of  Plants,  which  was  pub- 
lished in  1790,  and  the  Lamarckian  principle  is 
one  in  which  he  would  have  undoubtedly  felt  the 
deepest  interest.      His  sympathies  in  France  were 


GOETHE.  jg, 

wholly  with  Geoffrey  St.  Hilairc  and  his  conten- 
tion for  Philosophical  Anatomy  and  Philosophical 
Biology.  Showing  that  to  the  very  last  Goethe  took 
the  keenest  interest  in  science,  and  jDlaced  the 
movements  of  scientific  thought  above  j^olitical 
revolutions,  we  learn  of  his  following  the  debates 
between  St.  Hilaire  and  Cuvier ;  here  is  the 
famous  incident  of  his  eighty-first  year,  told  by 
Soret,  and  quoted  by  Haeckel :  — 

"Monday,  Aug.  2d,  1830.  — The  news  of  the  outbreak  of  the 
revolution   of  July  arrived   in  Weimar   to-day,  and    has   caused 
general  excitement.     In  the  course  of  the  afternoon  I  went  to 
Goethe.     '  Well,'  he  exclaimed  as  I  entered,  *  what  do  you  think 
of  this  great  event?     The  volcano  has  burst  forth,  all  is  in  flames, 
and  there  are  no  more  negotiations  behind  closed  doors.'     '  A 
dreadful  affair,'  I  answered ;  '  but  what  else  could  be  expected 
under  the  circumstances,  and  with  such  a  ministry,  except  that  it 
would  end  in  the  expulsion  of  the  present  royal  family?'     'We 
do  not  seem  to  understand  each  other,  my  dear  friend,'  rei)lied 
Goethe.     '  I  am  not  speaking  of  those  people  at  all ;  I  am  inter- 
ested in  something  very  different.     I  mean  the  dispute  between 
Cuvier  and  Geoffroy  de  Saint  Hilaire,  which  has  broken  out  in  the 
Academy,   and    which    is  of  such   great  importance  to  science.' 
This  remark  of  Goethe's  came  upon  me  so  unexpectedly  that  I 
did   not  know  what  to  say,  and  my  thoughts  for  some  minutes 
seemed  to  have  come  to  a  complete  standstill.     *  The  affair  is  of 
the  utmost  importance,'  he  continued,  '  and  you  cannot  fi)rni  any 
idea  of  what  I  felt  on  receiving  the  news  of  the  meeting  on  the 
19th.     In  Geoffroy  de  Saint  Hilaire  we  have  now  a  mighty  ally 
for  a  long  time  to  come.     But  I  see  also  how  great  the  sympathy 
of  the  French  scientific  world  must  be  in  this  affliir,  for,  in  sjiite 
•of  the  terrible  political  excitement,  the  meeting  on  the  19th  was 
attended  by  a  full  house.     The  best  of  it  is,  however,  that  tiie 


184  FROM  LAMARCK   TO   ST.   HILAIRE. 

synthetic  treatment  of  Nature,  introduced  into  France  by  Geoffroy, 
can  now  no  longer  be  stopped.  This  matter  has  now  become 
public  through  the  discussions  in  the  Academy,  carried  on  in  the 
presence  of  a  large  audience  ;  it  can  no  longer  be  referred  to  secret 
committees,  or  be  settled  or  suppressed  behind  closed  doors.'  " 

It  is  not  surprising  that  Goethe  was  appreciated 
in  France,  and  that  he  was  highly  praised  by- 
Isidore  St.  Hilaire.  In  Cuvier  we  find  the  follow- 
ing allusion  to  his  essays  on  Comparative  Anatomy : 
"  One  finds  in  them,  with  astonishment,  nearly 
all  the  propositions  which  have  been  separately 
advanced  in  recent  times."  And  Richard  Owen, 
somewhat  later,  wrote :  "  Goethe  had  taken  the 
lead  in  his  inquiries  into  Comparative  Osteology." 
Carus,  in  his  preface  to  his  Transcendental  Aiiat- 
omy,  wrote:  "  If  we  go  back  as  far  as  possible 
into  the  history  of  the  labours  undertaken  with  the 
view  to  arrive  at  the  philosophic  conception  of  the 
skeleton,  we  find  that  the  first  idea  of  the  meta- 
morphosis of  the  osseous  forms ;  that  is,  that  all 
forms  are  but  modifications,  more  or  less  traceable, 
of  one  and  the  same  type ;  this  idea  belongs  to 
Goethe." 

The  '  unity  of  type '  hypothesis,  which  exercised 
such  a  potent  influence  in  Europe,  was  developed 
in  Goethe's  mind  in  1 796 ;  this  was  the  concep- 
tion which  formed  the  chief  basis  of  his  idea  of 
Evolution:  — 

"Thus  much,  then,  we  have  gained,  that  we  may  assert,  without 
hesitation,  that  all  the  more  perfect  organic  natures,  such  as  fishes. 


GOETHE.  1 85 

amphibious  animals,  birds,  mammals,  and  man  at  the  head  of  the 
list,  were  all  formed  upon  one  original  type,  which  varies  only 
more  or  less  in  parts  which  are  none  the  less  permanent,  and 
which  still  daily  changes  and  modifies  its  form  by  propagation." 

With  him,  this  unity  of  type  was  broadly  based 
upon  his  own  observations,  and  was  partly  a  gener- 
alization. This  led  him  to  a  correct  explanation  of 
half-developed,  or  vestigial,  structures,  which  are 
among  the  strongest  evidences  of  the  law  of  Evolu- 
tion. He  thoroughly  understood  the  relations  of 
the  anatomy  of  man  to  that  of  lower  forms,  and 
speaks  of  vestigial  structures  in  man  as  follows  : 
"  These  structures,  which  in  lower  oro-anisms  are 
developed  iji  stronger  measure,  and  in  man,  in  spite 
of  his  higher  organism,  are  not  wholly  lost."  It  was 
this  interpretation  as  a  working  hypothesis,  wliich 
led  to  one  of  Goethe's  most  brilliant  achievements 
in  Comparative  Anatomy, —  his  prediction  of  the  dis- 
covery of  premaxillary  bones  in  man.  Tin's  raised 
a  storm  of  opposition  which  now  seems  hardly 
credible,  in  spite  of  which  Goethe  succeeded  in 
verifying  his  prediction. 

Thus,  Goethe  stepped  from  observation  to  gener- 
alization, from  generalization  to  the  working  hypoth- 
esis, which  he  turned  into  use  as  the  guide  to  fresh 
research.  He  advanced  upon  the  truly  modern  scien- 
tific method;  yet,  he  always  preserved  the  proper 
balance  between  observation  and  generalization. 
He  says  of  Kant,  that,  if  he  had  once  held  Kant's 
conception  of  derivation  and  of  filiation,  as  deduced 


1 86  FROM  LAMARCK   TO   ST.   HILAIRE, 

by  reason,  and  could  have  undertaken  lines  of 
inquiry,  nothing  would  have  prevented  him  from 
carrying  out  its  proofs. 

He  was  superior  to  all  his  three  contemporaries, 
Lamarck,  Treviranus,  and  St.  Hilaire,  in  his  realiza- 
tion that  certain  problems  were  very  far  from  solu- 
tion ;  in  a  work,  written  in  1 794-95,  but  not  published 
until  long  afterwards,  he  remarked  that,  "  the  ques- 
tion for  future  naturalists  wdll  be  to  determine  how, 
for  instance,  cattle  got  their  horns,  and  not  for  what 
they  are  used."  He  thus,  with  Kant,  felt  the  gap 
in  the  lack  of  a  natural  explanation  for  the  origin 
of  purposive  structures. 

Goethe's  theory  of  the  factors,  so  far  as  formulated, 
had  the  spirit  of  Buffon  and  Lamarck,  and  is  beauti- 
fully expressed  in  the  passage  Haeckel  selects  from 
his  Metamorphosis  of  Animals  (1819) :  — 

"  All  members  develop  themselves  according  to  eternal  laws, 
And  the  rarest  form  mysteriously  preserves  the  primitive  type. 
Form,  therefore,  determines  the  animal's  way  of  life, 
And  in  turn  the  way  of  life  powerfully  reacts  upon  all  form. 
Thus  the  orderly  growth  of  form  is  seen  to  hold 
Whilst  yielding  to  change  from  externally  acting  causes."  ^ 

In  his  Metamorphoses  of  Plaiits,  published  in 
1790,  we  find  Goethe's  ideas  clearly  expressed. 
He  here  derives  all  plants  from  a  single  original 
form,  and  all  the  elaborate  structures  of  the  plant 
from  the  leaf.  He  called  his  theory,  '  Bildung  tend 
U7nbildung'   or   '  Formation    and    Transformation.' 

1  This  contains  the  Aristotelian  '  matter  and  form  '  notion,  together  with  a 
perception  of  the  factors  of  Lamarck  (4th  line)  and  of  Buffon  C6th  line). 


TREVIRANUS.  1 87 

The  '  Urbild,'  or  type,  was  composed  of  the  internal 
original  common  characters,  or,  as  we  sliould  say, 
the  'stem  characters,'  lying  at  the  base  of  all  forms, 
and  these  original  structures  were  preserved  by 
heredity. 

The  preservation  of  this  type  was  opposed  by 
a  continuous  progressive  development,  and  this 
was  necessitated  by  the  relations  of  the  organism  to 
the  outer  world.  The  former,  or  type,  is  the  cen- 
tripetal structural  force,  or  specification;  while  the 
latter,  or  progressive  development,  is  the  centrifugal 
structural  force,  or  metamorphosis.  Goethe  prized 
highly  the  conception  of  these  two  opposed  forces, 
which  we  now  know  as  Heredity  and  Variation,  or 
Inheritance  and  Adaptation.  Morphology  was 
Goethe's  favourite  study,  and  upon  transformation 
depended  all  his  ideas  of  the  Descent  theory.  Phy- 
letic  series,  and  the  methods  of  ascertaining  them, 
were  wholly  unknown  to  him,  but  structural  series, 
or  the  modifications  of  a  primitive  type  or  arche- 
type, exhibited  successively  in  the  lower  and  highcr 
types  of  plants  and  in  the  lower  and  higher  types 
of  animals,  were  clearly  perceived,  and,  as  we  have 
seen  above,  they  led  Goethe  to  a  thoroughly  philo- 
sophical interpretation  of  structures  in  all  stages  of 
Evolution,  in  the  three  phases  of  Development,  Bal- 
ance, and  Degeneration. 

Gottfried  Reinhold  Treviranus  (i  776-1837),  a 
prominent  German  naturalist  and  contemjiorary  of 
Lamarck  and  Goethe,  has  the  distinction  of  defin- 


1 88  FROM  LAMARCK   TO   ST.   HILAIRE. 

ing  '  Biology '  as  the  science  of  living  Nature,  in 
1802.  It  is  an  interesting  coincidence  that  both  he 
and  Lamarck  independently  felt  the  need  of  a 
comprehensive  term  for  the  principles  underlying 
Botany  and  Zoology,  and  proposed  it  in  the  same 
year. 

Huxley  has  also  placed  Treyiranus  beside  La- 
marck as  one  of  the  founders  of  the  Evolution 
theory;  but  a  careful  study  of  Treviranus'  chief 
work  —  Biologie  oder  PhilosopJiie  der  lebeiide^i 
Natur — does  not  justify  our  ranking  these  two 
men  together.  In  the  other  extreme,  Treviranus,  as 
an  evolutionist,  has  been  too  widely  ignored.  He 
is  not  named  by  any  of  the  French  writers;  his 
own  countryman,  Haeckel,  has  shown  his  posi- 
tion clearly,  but  places  him  below  Oken.  I  may 
give  a  rather  full  statement  of  his  views.  His  Bio- 
logie was  published  several  years  after  Lamarck's 
first  essay  upon  Evolution,  but  in  the  preface  of 
his  last  work,  —  Erscheiiiungen  und  Gesetze  des 
Organischen  Lebens,  which  was  published  in  1830, 
—  Treviranus  states  that  he  had  reached  his  conclu- 
sions independently  of  and  prior  to  Lamarck. 
Even  in  this  case  we  cannot  claim  for  Trevira- 
nus great  originality ;  for  in  his  conception  of  Evo- 
lution he  does  not  advance  very  far  beyond  the 
standpoint  reached  by  Buffon  in  his  middle  period, 
and  he  appears  to  us  rather  as  a  very  careful  student 
and  compiler  not  only  of  Buffon  but  of  Leibnitz, 
Kant,    Schelling,  —  all    of    whom    suggested    the 


TREVIRANUS.  1 89 

Evolution  theory,  —  also  of  Linnaeus,  Harvey,  and 
Blumenbach.  He  had  moreover  the  advanta"-e  of 
the  new  Paleontology  of  Cuvier  and  of  the  travels 
of  Humboldt. 

His  point  of  approach  to  Nature  is  that  of  the 
German  natural  philosophers.  He  places  life  upon 
the  chemical  and  mechanical  basis,  and  in  hi>  intro- 
duction enters  a  vigorous  protest  against  the  jnu-ely 
speculative  work  upon  the  one  side,  —  die  Tnuiuic 
2md  Visio7ien, — probably  having  in  mind  his  worthv 
predecessor  Bonnet  and  others  whom  I  have  j^laced 
in  the  speculative  group.  On  the  other  side,  lie 
protests  against  the  dry  systematic  work  which 
Linneeus  had  left  to  his  posterity,  —  his  terms  with- 
out his  genius,  —  a  Botany  and  Zoology  devoid  of 
all  higher  generalizations. 

"An  author,"  he  says,  "can  have  no  sadder  and  more  spirit- 
killing  duty  than  the  reading  and  writing  of  compilations.  The 
teachings  of  Natural  Science  have  long  been  standing  isolated  like 
the  pyramids  in  the  deserts  of  Egypt,  as  if  the  value  of  Natural 
History  were  not  rather  the  application  than  the  mere  possession 
of  facts.  What  have  Botany  and  Zoology  been  hitherto,  but  a  dry 
register  of  names,  and  what  man  who  has  not  lost  his  sense  fi)r 
higher  work  can  find  time  for  these  gymnastics  of  memory  ?  But 
once  regard  systematic  work  as  a  part  of  Biology,  ami  nomencla- 
ture as  a  means  rather  than  as  an  end,  and  both  take  their  place 
in  science,  contributing  to  the  whole  in  which  the  intellect  of  man 
perceives  the  unity  and  harmony  of  Natural  Law.  l^ven  the  work 
of  Linn^us,  as  it  does  not  reach  the  highest  point,  is  mere  con- 
struction. The  author  will  give  opinion  and  theory  a  place  in 
this  work,  but  he  is  far  from  those  who  give  their  dreams  and 
fancies  a  reahty  and  permanence,  believing  that  his  own  theories 


1 90  FROM  LAMARCK   TO   ST.   HILAIRE. 

may  perish,  and  hoping  to  direct  the  current  of  thought  in  Biol- 
ogy to  adapt  itself  to  Nature,  and  not  to  make  Nature  adapt  her- 
self to  the  current  of  thought.  Let  us  not  direct  the  stream  of 
Nature,  but  be  directed  by  her.  Let  us  publish  a  work  which 
will  collect  the  numerous  thoughts  lying  scattered  throughout 
the  writings  of  Natural  History,  and  this  generalization  will  have 
greater  value  than  all  the  descriptions  of  new  forms." 

Treviranus  thus  ranges  himself  with  the  school 
of  Buffon,  Lamarck,  Geoffroy  St.  Hilaire,  and 
Goethe,  as  against  the  school  of  Linnaeus  and 
Cuvier.  He  believed  that  it  was  possible  to  dis- 
cover the  Philosophy  of  Nature,  and  his  whole 
work  is  written  in  an  admirable  spirit.  In  the 
succeeding  introductory  chapters  upon  the  inter- 
pretation of  living  Nature,  he  considers  the  impor- 
tance of  Biology,  its  fundamental  principles,  possible 
systems  of  Biology,  methods  of  experimental  Biol- 
ogy, as  well  as  the  use  of  the  hypothesis,  —  that  is, 
the  working  hypothesis,  —  as  the  essential  weapon 
of  progress  towards  the  truth.  He  defines  Biology 
as  "the  study  of  the  different  forms  and  appear- 
ances of  organic  life,  of  the  conditions  and  laws 
under  which  these  exist,  and  of  the  causes  by  which 
they  are  kept  in  operation."  In  the  Laws  of  Life 
(p.  58),  he  points  out  that  every  part  of  the  organ- 
ism is  subservient  to  the  whole,  that  Nature  never 
builds  up  one  organ  or  system  of  organs  without 
causing  others  to  suffer  reduction.  This  is  equiva- 
lent to  the  '  loi  de  balancemejit '  of  St.  Hilaire,  or  the 
modern  law  of  '  compensation  of  growth,'  the  defi- 


TREVIRANUS.  ,,,i 

ciency  of  one  part  being  made  up  by  the  greater 
development  of  another.  He  also,  as  clearly  as 
Lamarck,  perceives  the  causal  relation  between 
function  and  structure.  In  his  conception  of 
natural  environment,  he  with  Schelling  perceives 
that  every  class  of  animals  exerts  upon  living 
Nature  influences  similar  to  those  exerted  in  the 
animal  or  plant  by  their  organs  and  systems  of 
organs  upon  each  other. 

He  has  two  chief  thoughts  in  regard  to  environ- 
ment. First,  the  influences  of  life  upon  life,  and  of 
life  upon  Nature;  and  second,  the  constant  revolu- 
tions of  life  and  climate.  He  says  that  the  wider  the 
limits  reached  by  the  action  or  by  the  incidence  or 
impact  of  environment  upon  the  living  organism, 
so  much  higher  the  grade  of  the  organism  must  be. 
The  lowest  rudiments  of  life  —  vita  minima  —  are 
those  in  which  the  action  of  environment  falls  with 
least  specialization,  and  these  rudiments  mark  the 
transition  to  lifeless  matter.  This  conception  of 
environment,  as  the  action  and  reaction  of  life  upon 
Nature  and  of  life  upon  life,  he  amplifies  in  connec- 
tion with  the  law  of  Buffon  and  Malthus,  that  the 
struggle  for  existence  consists,  not  only  in  repro- 
duction, but  in  reproduction  increasing  in  quantity 
accordins:  to  the  destructive  influences  of  surround- 
ing  life.  An  animal  must  have  more  progeny  as  the 
number  of  its  enemies  increases. 

We  thus  see  that  Treviranus  breathed  the  spirit 
of  the  most  philosophical  of  his  predecessors,  and 


192  FROM  LAMARCK   TO   ST.   HI  LAIR  E. 

was  essentially  modern  in  his  method.  We,  there- 
fore, expect  to  find  an  equal  breadth  of  view  in  his 
treatment  of  the  problem  of  Evolution.  Here  we 
are  disappointed,  for  we  find  only  another  proof  of 
the  insuperable  difiiculties  under  which  these  early 
evolutionists  laboured,  in  the  comparatively  limited 
knowledge  they  possessed  of  the  forms  and  succes- 
sions of  life.  As  soon  as  Treviranus  departs  from 
these  first  principles  of  Biology  and  undertakes  an 
application  of  these  principles  to  a  theory  of  devel- 
opment of  animal  life,  he  becomes  more  and  more 
speculative,  and  shows  himself  much  inferior  to 
Lamarck  in  his  approach  to  the  truth. 

In  his  conception  of  Evolution,  we  see  him  trans- 
lating Buffon's  term  '  dhiaturee, '  by  '  degeneration  ' ; 
for  he  means  by  '  degeneration '  exactly  what  we 
now  term  'adaptation,'  or  modification,  by  the  ac- 
tion of  external  formative  forces ;  in  other  words, 
both  development  and  degeneration.  His  theory  of 
the  Evolution  factors  is  very  similar  to  that  of 
Buffon,  as  he  traces  degeneration  solely  to  the  influ- 
ences of  varying  external  conditions,  and  this  he  be- 
lieves to  be  the  modifying  factor  in  single  organisms. 
The  perpetual  changes  in  living  surroundings  bring 
about  constant  changes  in  the  organization  of  the 
body. 

In  course  of  these  changes  old  species  are  de- 
stroyed and  new  ones  take  their  places.  He  brings 
out  clearly  the  idea  of  the  action  of  environment  in 
the  elimination  of  species,  groups,  and  families,  but 


TRE  VI RAN  US. 


193 


does  not  assign  this  as  a  cause  of  the  origin  of  adap- 
tations. Thus,  many  species  become  extinct,  while 
others  become  diminished  in  numbers.  Man,  liiin- 
self,  exhibits  the  direct  modifying  influence  of  his 
environment  by  wide  variations  in  his  structure. 
The  history  of  the  older  geological  periods  is  given 
us  in  the  succession  of  fossils.  Here,  Tre\'iranus 
added  to  the  work  of  Cuvier  the  idea  of  mudifica- 
tion  in  time,  an  idea  which  Cuvier  never  adopted. 

Continuing  to  extend  his  Evolution  theory  (Vol. 
III.,  p.  225),  we  find  that  he  believed  in  Abiogc- 
nesis :  — 

Every  form  of  life  can  be  produced  by  physical  forces  in  one 
of  two  ways :  either  by  coming  into  being  out  of  formless  (inor- 
ganic) matter,  or  by  the  modification  of  an  already  existing  form 
by  a  continued  process  of  shaping.  .  .  .  Wherever  Nature  has 
exerted  her  building  forces  she  has  brought  forth  Autochthones, 

living  bodies, 

.  .  .  qui  rupfo  robore  nati, 
Compositive  Into,  nidlos  habuere  parenies. 

Wherever  like  conditions  prevailed,  of  climate,  earth,  water,  atmos- 
phere, and  a  similar  geographical  position,  these  Autochthones 
were  similar,  and  the  species  which  developed  from  them  remained 
similar  as  long  as  the  environment  was  unaltered.  But  in  studying 
the  form  of  any  particular  country,  it  is  very  hard  to  determine 
which  forms  are  native  or  autochthonous,  and  which  have  spread 
into  the  country  by  migration  from  other  countries. 

He  then  proceeds  to  anachronistic  theories  of  the 
abio^enetic  orlgrin  of  these  Autochthones:  — 

"  But  how  did  these  species  arise?  Were  they  born  fully  formed, 
like  Aphrodite,  from  sea-foam?    Or  as  simple  zoophytes?    Thcv 

o 


194  FROM  LAMARCK    TO   ST.    HILAIRE. 

could  only  have  arisen  by  the  development  from  generation  to  gen- 
eration of  similar  forms  ;  these  primitive  forms  are  the  Encrinites, 
Pentacrinites,  Ammonites,  and  other  zoophytes  of  the  Old  World, 
from  which  all  organisms  of  the  higher  classes  have  arisen.  Each 
species  has  its  period  of  growth,  of  full  bloom,  and  decline  ;  the 
latter  is  a  period  of  degeneration.  Thus,  it  is  not  only  the  great 
catastrophes  of  Nature  which  have  caused  extinction,  but  the 
completion  of  cycles  of  existence,  out  of  which  new  cycles  have 
begun.  Thus,  in  Nature,  all  is  in  a  state  of  flux  and  transfer ; 
even  man  has  not  reached  the  highest  term  of  his  existence,  but 
will  progress  to  still  higher  regions,  and  produce  a  nobler  type  of 
being." 

These  sentences  show  that  Treviranus  did  not 
add  anything  to  the  main  theory  of  Evolution,  al- 
though a  strong  advocate  of  it.  His  ideas  upon 
descent  are  much  less  clear  and  accurate  than  those 
of  Lamarck ;  and  in  his  views  of  the  original,  spon- 
taneous origin  of  some  of  the  higher  forms  of  life, 
as  shown  in  the  sentence  last  quoted,  he  is  very  far 
afield.  Haeckel  is  mistaken  when  he  states  that 
Treviranus  refers  to  the  lowest  organisms  in  the 
term  '  zoophytes,'  for  Treviranus  couples  with  this 
term  such  complex  forms  as  Crinoids  and  Ammo- 
nites. As  to  the  factors  of  Evolution,  he  does  not 
advance  beyond  Buffon,  and  in  his  general  concep- 
tion he  virtually  takes  the  position  held  ,much 
earlier  by  Goethe,  for  he  summarizes  his  views 
in  the  sentence  :  "  In  every  living  being  there  exists 
the  capability  of  an  endless  variety  of  form- 
assumption  ;  each  possesses  the  power  to  adapt  its 
organization  to  the  changes  of  the  outer  world,  and  it 


CUVIER.  105 

is  this  power,  put  into  action  by  the  change  of  the 
universe,  that  has  raised  the  simple  zoophytes  of  tlie 
primitive  world  to  continually  higher  stages  of  or- 
ganization, and  has  introduced  a  countless  variety 
of  species  into  animate  Nature." 

Georges  Cuvier  (i 769-1832),  as  the  great  oppo- 
nent of  Lamarckian  doctrines  in  particular,  of  Evo- 
lution in  general,  and  of  the  methods  of  thought 
which  were  surely  leading  to  its  demonstration,  de- 
serves a  few  words  in  this  history.  It  is  interesting 
to  note  that  in  forming  his  personal  opinions,  he  re- 
versed the  order  taken  by  Linnaeus,  Lamarck,  and 
St.  Hilaire;  for,  starting  with  views  very  similar  t(^ 
the  most  advanced  held  by  Buff  on  upon  the  muta- 
bility of  species,  he  arrived  at  a  point  as  conserva- 
tive as  the  early  position  of  Linnaeus,  insisting  upon 
the  fixity,  not  only  of  species,  but  of  varieties.  His 
definition  was  of  the  kind  destined  to  prevail  until 
1858.  "All  the  beings  belonging  to  one  of  these 
forms  (perpetuated  since  the  beginning  of  all  things, 
that  is,  the  Creation)  constitute  what  we  call  sjk'- 
cies."  As  head  of  the  illustrious  Ecolc  dcs  Faiis, 
he  laughed,  and  set  his  pupils  laughing,  over  the 
*  Philosophy  of  Nature,'  characterizing  it  as  '  La  Utc 

de  la  tete' 

It  is  strancre  that  whenever  Cuvier  left  his  oh- 
jective  studies  for  speculation,  he  was  exceinionally 
unsound;  in  his  Embryology  he  believed  in  'Evo- 
lution' z/^r57/i-  '  Epigenesis ' ;  in  his  Discours  sur 
les  Revolutions  stir  la  Stirfacc  du   Glolh\  he  ad\-o- 


196  FROM  LAMARCK    TO  ST.   HILAIRE. 

cated  the  doctrine  of  Catastrophism  versus  Unifor- 
mity ;  he  also  advanced,  and  later  retracted,  the 
theory  of  a  '  succession  of  special  creations.'  As 
the  chief  founder  of  Comparative  Anatomy  and 
Paleontology,  he  introduced  the  modern  conception 
of  Paleontology  as  past  Zoology.  He  first  de- 
scribed Anchitherium,  and  pointed  out  its  resem- 
blance to  the  Horse ;  this  is  a  form  which,  perhaps, 
more  than  any  other,  is  to-day  part  of  the  most 
convincing  fossil  testimony  of  Evolution  ;  yet  Cuvier 
failed  to  see  in  it  any  proofs  of  the  '  filiation  '  hy- 
pothesis he  was  opposing.  His  influence  was  almost 
unbounded ;  a  favourite  of  Napoleon,  he  was  able 
to  build  up  a  great  school  in  the  Jardin  des  Plantes, 
and  exerted  his  political  influence  in  keeping  the 
'  transformists  '  out  of  position.  He  was  followed  by 
De  Candolle,  the  botanist,  by  Dumeril,  the  inver- 
tebrate zoologist,  by  De  Blainville,  the  paleontolo- 
gist ;  in  Germany,  by  Vogt  and  Bronn.  Richard 
Owen  partly  shared  Cuvier's  views,  and  partly  those 
of  St.  Hilaire. 

Geoffroy  St.  Hilaire  (i  772-1 844),  another 
of  the  distinguished  French  naturalists  of  the 
early  part  of  this  century,  was  long  a  colleague 
of  Lamarck  in  the  Jardin  des  Plantes.  We  cannot 
read  his  works  without  perceiving  that  he  was  by 
birth  a  philosopher,  and  by  adoption  a  naturalist. 
Although  his  theory  of  the  causes  was  profoundly 
different  from  that  of  Lamarck,  he  belonged  to  the 
Buffon- Lamarck  school  of  thought,  as  opposed  to 


ST.   HILAIRE.  igy 

that  of  Cuvier,  and  in  support  of  this  school  liis 
name  came  into  wide  celebrity  by  the  famous  dis- 
cussion of  1830  in  the  French  Academy  of  Sciences, 
to  which  Goethe  alluded.  He  added  largely  to 
the  evidences  of  'filiation'  and  contributed  sev- 
eral entirely  original  theoretical  'factors' of  trans- 
formation; nevertheless,  there  is  an  undercurrent 
of  doubt  as  to  the  extent  of  the  law  of  Evolution, 
in  all  his  writings.  He  was  not  a  radical  evolution- 
ist like  Lamarck. 

Perrier,  Quatrefages,  and  the  younger  St.  Hilaire 
have  carefully  studied  his  opinions  and  historv. 
St.  Hilaire  w^as  a  pupil  of  Buff  on,  but  as  a  thinker 
he  mainly  acknowledges  his  debt  to  the  German 
Natural  Philosophers  and  especially  to  Schelling 
in  his  researches  upon  the  philosophy  of  Nature; 
althouQ-h  he  does  not  follow  Schellino:  in  his  advo- 
cacy  of  the  superiority  of  the  deductive  method. 

St.  Hilaire's  method  was  professedly  inductive. 
Ideas,  he  said,  should  be  directly  engendered  by 
facts.  His  conceptions  were  often  a  priori,  but  his 
demonstrations  were  always  a  posteriori.  In  his 
speculation  upon  Evolution,  we  see  that  St.  Hilaire 
was  by  no  means  always  consistent  with  his  method, 
but  was  very  largely  influenced  by  certain  classes 
of  facts  which  came  under  his  direct  observation, 
and  reasoned  from  these  to  laws  touching  facts  of 
quite  a  distinct  character.  Goethe  says  of  him: 
"He  recalls  Buffon  in  some  points  of  view.  He 
does  not   stop   at  Nature  existing  or  achieved  ;  he 


198  FROM  LAMARCK   TO   ST.    HI  LA  IRE. 

studies  it  in  the  germ,  in  its  development,  and  in  its 
future.  He  projects  the  idea  of  unity,  which  Buffon 
had  just  touched  upon."  There  were  three  branches 
of  study  in  which  St.  Hilaire  was  most  deeply  inter- 
ested. First,  Comparative  Anatomy;  second.  Tera- 
tology ;  and  third,  what  came  to  be  known  as 
Philosophical  Anatomy  when  he  finally  embodied  it 
in  the  Philosophie  Ajiatomique.  This  was  published 
in  18 18,  and  was  the  work  so  greatly  admired  by 
Goethe.  The  narrower  range  of  his  studies,  the 
dominating  influence  of  his  '  unity  of  type  '  principle 
and  the  sudden  departures  from  type  seen  in  his 
pathological  studies,  shaped  the  growth  of  St. 
Hilaire  s  limited  and  peculiar  view  of  Evolution. 

He  has  been  mistakenly  spoken  of  as  the  suc- 
cessor of  Lamarck.  It  is  simply  true  that  he  took 
up  the  general  doctrines  of  transformism  at  the 
point  where  Lamarck  could  no  longer  defend  them. 
As  a  remarkable  coincidence,  Buffon,  Lamarck,  and 
Hilaire  all  became  transformists  at  the  same  aee  of 
life.  His  son,  Isidore  St.  Hilaire,  as  well  as  Quatre- 
fages  and  Perrier,  show  very  clearly  that  he  was 
more  properly  the  disciple  and  expander  of  Buffon. 
He  denied  the  inherited  influences  of  habit,  which 
formed  Lamarck's  central  thought,  and  maintained 
that  the  direct  action  of  environment  was  the  sole 
cause  of  transformation,  always  regarding  organisms 
as  comparatively  passive  in  their '  milieu!  Thus  he 
found  it  necessary  to  greatly  differentiate  Buffon's 
conception  of  environment,  especially  on  its  chemi- 


ST.   in  LA  IRE.  log 

cal  atmospheric  side,  attributing  very  marked  results 
to  its  influence  upon  the  respiratory  functions,  as 
in  his  account  of  the  evolution  of  the  crocodiles 
from  the  saurians. 

It  was  between  1825  ^^nd  1828  that  Geoff roy 
pubHshed  his  memoirs  upon  the  fossil  Tclcosaurs 
of  Caen,  and  connected  them  by  theoretical  descent 
with  the  existing  Gavials.^  Changing  environment 
and  respiration  were,  he  believed,  the  chief  factors 
in  this  transformation.^ 

"  Le  monde  ambiant  est  tout  puissant  pour  une  alt<^raiion  des 
corps  organises.  ...  La  respiration  constitue,  selon  moi,  une 
ordonnee  si  puissante  pour  la  disposition  des  formes  animales  (ju'il 
n'est  meme  point  necessaire  que  le  milieu  des  fluides  respiratoire 
se  modifie  brusquement  et  fortement,  pour  occasioner  des  formes 
tres  peu  sensiblement  alterees." 

The  atmosphere,  acting  upon  the  pulmonary  cells, 
brings  about  ''  modifications  which  are  favo^irablc  or 
destructive  {^  funestes  ' );  these  are  inherited,  and  they 
influence  all  the  rest  of  the  organization  of  the  aiiinial 
because  if  these  modifications  lead  to  injurious  effects, 
the  animals  which  exhibit  them  perisJi  and  are  replaced 
by  others  of  a  somewhat  different  form,  a  Jorni 
changed  so  as  to  be  adapted  to  [a  la  co)ivena)ice)  the 
new  environmentr  This  is  a  very  striking  state- 
ment of  a  law  of  variation  due  to  the  influences 
of  environment,  and  of  the  survival  or  extinction  of 

^  Recherches  sur  des  grands  Sanriens  trouves  h  titat fossile.  Mem.  Acad, 
d.  Sciences,  Paris,  1831. 

2  Influence  du  monde  ambiant  pour  modifier  les  formes  animales.  Mem. 
de  I'Acad.  d.  Sc,  XIL,  p.  63,  1833. 


200  FROM  LAMARCK   TO   ST.   HILAIRE. 

types  according  to  the  favourable  or  unfavourable 
character  of  the  variation.     Perrier    italicizes    this 
passage  and  points  out  its  anticipation  of  Darwinism. 
Another  highly  characteristic  feature  of  his  theory 
was,  that  he  included  in  it  what  has  recently  been^ 
termed  'saltatory  evohition',    and  strongly  opposed   \ 
Lamarck's  fundamental  principle  that  all  transfor-_J 
mation  is  extremely  slow.     It  is  evident  that  this 
idea  was  suggested  to  him  by  the  sudden  transfor- 
mations observed  in  his  teratological  studies.     This^ 
enabled   him    to    maintain    Evolution    without   de- 
monstrating   the   existence  of   intermediate  forms. 
Intermediate  forms  had  beo^un  to  be  a  stumblinor- 


y 


block  to  evolutionists.  Where,  it  was  asked,  was 
evidence  of  a  transition  between  amphibians  and 
reptiles,  and  between  reptiles  and  birdsi^^his 
also  enabled  St.  Hilaire  to  avoid  a  difficulty  he 
himself  raised,  that  characters  of  new  forms  of  life 
would  not  be  maintained  pure,  owning  to  the  blends 
of  interbreeding ;  these  sudden  saltations  or  leaps 
from  type  to  type  secured  the  necessary  physiologi- 
cal isolation.  As  a  rapid  transformationist,  he  was 
not,  however,  an  imitator  of  De  Maillet,  who,  we 
remember,  believed  in  the  transformation  of  adult 
forms.  St.  Hilaire  denied  the  possibility  of  these 
rapid  leaps  in  the  adult  condition,  and  believed  that 
they  took  place  mainly  in  the  embryonic  condition ;  ! 
here,  the  underlying  causes  of  sudden  transformation 
were  profound  changes  induced  in  the  ^^^  by  external 
influences,  accidents  as  it  were,  regulated  by  law. 


ST.   IHLAIRE.  201 

As  it  involved  rapid,  as  well  as  gradual,  transfor- 
mation, St.  Hilaire's  system  did  not  alwavs  rccjuire 
the  existence  of  intermediate  links.  Vox  instance, 
he  advanced  as  an  hypothesis  the  suggestion  that 
the  first  bird  might  have  issued  directly  from  the 
^%%  laid  by  a  reptile,  and,  as  a  bird  could  not  be  fer- 
tilized or  intercrossed  by  its  reptilian  relatives,  the 
new  characters  could  not  be  supjDressed  by  inter- 
crossing: "It  is  evidently  not  by  an  insensible 
change  that  the  inferior  types  of  oviparous  verte- 
brates have  given  rise  to  the  superior  organization  of 
the  group  of  birds.  An  accident,  within  the  ran<rc 
of  possibility,  and  not  very  great  in  its  original  pro- 
duction, but  of  an  incalculable  importance  in  all  its 
effects,  has  sufficed  to  produce  in  all  parts  of  the 
body  the  conditions  of  the  bird  type." 

Finally,    his    attitude    towards    transformism,   as 
explaining  all  forms  of  life,  was  much  less  positive 
and  sweeping  than  Lamarck's.     His  view  of  Evo- 
lution may  be  summed  up  in  this  sentence  :    "  Spe- 
cies  vary   with    their    environment,    and    existing 
species  have  descended  by  modification  from  earlier 
and  somewhat  simpler  species."     He  admitted  that 
the  question  to  be  decided  by  future  paleontological 
research,    is  whether  "  the   living  forms  of    to-day 
have  descended  by  a  succession  of  generations,  and 
without  break,  from  the  extinct  forms  of  the  ante- 
diluvian period."     He  looked  for,  and  found,  proofs 
and  evidences,  within  his  own  reach,  in  limbryology, 
in  the  history  of  metamorphoses  and  in  Teratology. 


202  FROM  LAMARCK   TO   ST.  HILAIRE. 

Not  even  in  speculation  did  he  trace  back  all  forms 
of  life  to  a  simple  prototype  ;  he  thus  narrowed 
Lamarck's  wide  field  of  conjecture  in  Phylogeny. 

We  find  a  full  account  of  the  famous  discussion 
of  the  year  1830,  between  St.  Hilaire  and  Cuvier, 
in  Perrier's  Philosophie  Zoologiqiie  avaiit  Darwin. 
It  is  also  frequently  alluded  to  in  the  Histoire 
Natttrelle  Ghierale,  by  the  younger  St.  Hilaire. 

Linnaeus  opened  his  Systema  Natures  with  the 
statement  that  the  true  greatness  of  man  consists 
in  his  observing,  reasoning,  and  forming  conclu- 
sions, but  the  main  tendency  of  his  own  work  was 
to  carry  his  conclusions  only  to  the  point  of  distin- 
guishing between  the  separate  forms  of  life,  not  to 
the  causes  of  these  distinctions.  Buffon  held  that 
the  first  aim  of  science  was  to  describe  exactly,  and 
to  determine  particular  facts,  but  that  we  must  de- 
vote ourselves  to  something  higher ;  namely,  to  com- 
bine and  generalize  upon  the  facts,  and  to  judge 
particular  causes  in  the  light  of  the  more  general 
causes  of  Nature.  Thus,  Linnaeus  and  Buffon  were 
the  founders  of  two  distinct  schools.  Linnaeus  was 
upheld  by  Cuvier  and  all  the  systematic  writers ; 
Buffon  by  Lamarck,  Treviranus,  Goethe,  and  St.  Hil- 
aire. Into  this  higher  region  of  generalization,  which 
Goethe  took  up  only  to  abandon,  few  naturalists 
dared  to  stir.  The  followers  of  Linnaeus  showed 
themselves  weakest  where  they  attempted  deduction, 
and  we  have  contrasted  the  soundness  of  Cuvier  s 
Comparative  Anatomy  with  the  worthlessness  of  his 


ST.  HILAIRE  AND   CUVIER.  203 

speculation.  The  Buffon  school  came  into  ridicule 
by  some  of  the  wild  hypotheses  in  tlK-ir  caHier 
books;  for  neither  Buffon  nor  Lamarck  knew  wht-n 
to  apply  the  curb.  Excessive  speculation  bnni;^rht 
a  reaction.  After  Kielmeyer,  Schellinc^,  and  Goethe, 
there  was  a  return  to  the  older  methods  of  simple 
observation  and  record.  As  we  have  seen,  tlii>  was 
partly  justified  by  the  fact  that  the  whole  jjliilosophy 
of  the  speculative  writers,  and  much  of  that  of 
Buffon  and  Lamarck,  was  deductive,  rather  than  in- 
ductive. Geoffroy  St.  Hilaire  sought  to  revive 
speculation  and  place  it  upon  the  true  inductive- 
deductive  basis  in  his  Philosophic  Auatojni(]uc. 

On  the  15th  February,  1830,  matters  came  to  a 
crisis;  St.  Hilaire  read  before  the  Academv  of 
Sciences  at  Paris,  in  the  name  of  Latreille  and  him- 
self, a  report  upon  the  investigations  of  two  voung 
naturalists.  The  conclusions  reached  in  the  report 
were  advanced  in  support  of  St.  Hilaire's  chief 
doctrine  of  the  tinivcrsal  unity  of  plan  of  com- 
position;  this  was  his  central  life  thouglit,  leading 
him  to  emphasize  the  resemblances  rather  than  the 
differences  between  animals,  and  to  lay  the  founda- 
tion of  the  study  of  'parallelism'  in  develo])mcnt. 
In  this  case  he  was  illustrating  his  j^rinciple  by  the 
supposed  analogy  between  the  organization  of  some 
cephalopod  molluscs  and  the  vertebrates.  It 
seemed  to  Cuvier  that  these  conclusions  consti- 
tuted a  direct  attack,  and  this  brought  on  a  discus- 
sion of    the  questions  which  had   been  marking  a 


204  FROM  LAMARCK   TO   ST.    HILAIRE. 

widening  gap  between  the  opinions  of  the  two  great 
schools.  Cuvier  replied  by  a  criticism  of  the  posi- 
tion of  St.  Hilaire  as  to  this  'unity  of  plan,'  and 
rightly  sought  to  demonstrate  that  there  were 
several  distinct  plans  of  animal  organization.  He 
carefully  analyzed  the  arguments  brought  forward, 
and  showed  conclusively  that  in  the  types  cited  by 
St.  Hilaire  the  organs  in  their  position  gave  evi- 
dence simply  of  analogy  and  of  resemblance,  not 
of  a  real  unity  of  plan ;  that  these  molluscs  led  to 
no  other  types.  Further,  he  said  that  St.  Hilaire's 
method  contained  nothing  new,  and  reverted  simply 
to  the  views  of  Aristotle. 

In  following  the  details  of  this  discussion,  we 
see  that  Cuvier  was  entirely  correct  in  his  facts, 
and  wrong  in  his  principle ;  while  St.  Hilaire  was 
wrong  in  his  facts,  and  right  in  the  principle  which 
he  advocated.  The  effect  was  to  drive  Cuvier,  who 
issued  with  the  greater  eclat,  into  the  extreme  posi- 
tion of  recommending  naturalists  to  confine  them- 
selves solely  to  the  exposition  of  positive  facts  with- 
out attempting  to  draw  from  them  inductions. 
This  sharp  issue,  therefore,  exerted  a  retarding 
influence  upon  the  progress  of  inquiry  into  Evo- 
lution ;  for  Cuvier,  in  his  brilliant  lectures  in  the 
College  de  France,  threw  increased  weight  against 
the  method  and  teachings  of  St.  Hilaire,  as  he 
had  previously  done  against  those  of  Lamarck. 

BoRY  DE  Saint  Vincent  (i  780-1846)  seems  to 
have  been  the  only  loyal  successor  of  Lamarck  ia 


ST.    VINCENT.  205 

France.  Like  his  leader,  he  was  both  a  naturah'st, 
and,  for  a  time,  an  army  officer.  In  the  furmcr 
capacity,  he  was,  for  a  time,  with  the  expedition 
of  Baudin.  Quatrefages  has  given  the  following 
sketch  of  his  views : 

In  several  papers,  but  especially  in  the  article 
*  Creation  '  of  the  Dictionnairc  Classiqiic  dc  rilis- 
ioire  Naturelle,  of  which  he  was  the  editor,  he 
developed,  in  more  than  one  point,  the  doctrines 
of  Lamarck,  and  drew  from  them  conclusions  which 
belonged  to  himself. 

Bory  admits  the  spontaneous  daily  formation  of 
new  species,  not,  it  is  true,  upon  our  continents, 
which  have  for  a  long  time  been  peopled  with  both 
animals  and  plants,  but  only  in  countries  consid- 
ered by  him  less  ancient  in  formation.  He  cites, 
for  example,  the  island  of  Madagascar,  which  he 
believes  to  have  only  recently  issued  from  tlie  sea, 
under  the  influence  of  volcanic  forces.  According 
to  him,  this  island  contains  more  "polymorphic 
species  than  all  the  terra fijnna  of  the  Old  World." 
On  this  relatively  modern  soil  he  says  species  are 
not  yet  fixed.  Nature,  in  hastening  to  constitute 
the  types,  seems  to  have  neglected  to  regulate  the 
accessory  organs.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  con- 
tinents more  anciently  formed,  the  develoj^nent  of 
plants  has,  perforce,  followed  an  identical  route  for 
an  incalculable  number  of  generations.  The  plants 
have  thus  become  arrested  in  their  types,  and  do 
not  present  the  variations  so  frequent  in  new  coun- 


206  FROM  LAMARCK    TO   ST.  HILAIRE. 

tries.  Bory  thus  introduces  a  new  idea  in  the 
influence  exercised  on  the  fixation  of  specific  char- 
acters by  the  action  of  a  long  series  of  ancestors 
placed  under  constant  conditions.  According  to 
him,  this,  so  to  speak,  is  habit  exercising  its  powers, 
not  only  on  individuals,  but  even  on  species.  But 
in  this  conception,  without  being  apparently  aware 
of  it,  he  places  himself  in  formal  contradiction  to 
the  master  of  whom  he  proclaims  himself  a  disci- 
ple. We  have  seen,  in  fact,  that  in  the  opinion  of 
Lamarck,  all  organized  forms  were  being  constantly 
modified  according  to  new  needs,  and  it  follows 
that  each  generation  was  separated  more  and  more 
from  its  ancestors.  While  with  Bory  heredity  would 
have,  as  its  result,  the  fixation  of  characters,  with 
Lamarck  it  is  constantly  causing  them  to  vary, 
by  accumulating  the  little  differences  acquired  in 
each  generation.  In  this  point  of  view,  Bory  must 
be  regarded  as  an  aberrant  disciple  of  Lamarck. 
The  idea  of  Bory,  of  the  fixation  of  characters  by 
heredity,  was  subsequently  taken  up  and  enlarged 
by  his  countryman,  Naudin. 

Isidore  St.  Hilaire  (1805-1861)  serves  us  as  a 
mirror  of  the  further  recession  of  opinion  from 
transformism  in  France.  The  tide  of  hostile  influ- 
ence had  set  too  strongly  against  the  doctrine  ;  and 
we  find  the  son  taking  a  still  more  conservative 
position  than  his  father,  whom,  nevertheless,  he 
loyally  defended. 

He  advanced  a  theory  of  '  the  limited  variability 


ISIDORE   ST.   HILAIRE.  20/ 

of   species'  (rather  than  of   the  mutability)  in  his 
classic    work,    Histoire    Generalc    ct    Particulurc 
d'Aiiomalies    de    V  Organization,     1832,    and     his 
L Histoire  Naturelle  des  Regnes  Orgauiqucs.     He 
was  undoubtedly  swayed  by  the  difficulty  of  finding 
positive    evidence  for   transformation,   and    furthc'r 
by  the  negative  evidence  of  the  stability  of  species 
afforded  by  the  rich  collections  of  mummied  animals 
brought   back  from    Egypt.      Thus,   in   his   theory, 
he   dwelt   upon  the  limited  variability  rather  than 
the  mutability  of  species,  believing  in  transmission 
only  to  the  point  of  forming  a  new  race.     This  is 
fully   set  forth   in  his   Histoire  Natiirclk  (Vol.   I., 
p.  431).     At  the   conclusion   of  his  review   of    the 
history  of   opinion  upon  Evolution   in    France,   he 
gives    it,    as    his   own  opinion,  that  characters  are 
neither  actually  fixed  nor  variable,  both  depending 
upon   the  fixity  or  the  variability  of   environment. 
New   characters   are   the   resultant   of   two  forces: 
first,  the  modifying  influence  of  new  surroundings; 
and,  second,  the  conserving  influence  of  Ileredilv. 
When  the  former  predominates,  variations   result, 
such  as  are  seen  among  savages  and  in  the  domes- 
tication of  animals.     These  variations  amonij:  ^vild 
animals  extend  to  modifications  of  colour  and  exter- 
nal characters,  but  in  domestication  the  differences 
are   much    more    marked.     So    much    for   changes 
going  on  at  the  present  time.     As  to  past  tinie,  the 
'theory  of  limited  variability '  links  itself  with   that 
of  *  filiation,'  or  descent  from   analogous  forms,  as 


208  FROM  LAMARCK   TO   ST.    HILAIRE. 

opposed  to  that  of  Cuvier  of  '  successive  creations,' 
or  of  migration  of  existing  species  from  other  quar- 
ters of  the  globe.  He  concludes  by  saying,  very 
guardedly,  that  this  acceptance  of  the  transmutation 
theory  rests  upon  the  actual  very  limited  state  of 
evidence. 

It  is  another  striking  coincidence  that  in  the 
very  year  (1859)  in  which  this  passage  was  pub- 
lished the  Origin  of  Species  appeared.  The  last 
staQ:es  of  the  decline  of  the  main  '  transmutation ' 
movement  in  France  were  coincident  with  its 
sudden  and  final  revival  and  estabHshment  in 
England. 


VI. 

DARWIN. 

Es  ist  fur  Menschen  ungereimt,  auch  nur  einen  solchen  Anschlag  zu  fassen. 
Oder  zu  hoffen,  dass  noch  etwa  dereinst  ein  Newton  aufstehen  konne,  dcr  auch 
nur  die  Erzeugung  eines  Grashalms  nach  Naturgesetzen,  die  keine  Absichtgeordnct 
hat,  begreiflich  machen  werde,  sondern  man  muss  diese  Einsicht  dcm  Menschen 
schlechterdings  absprechen.  —  Kant. 

With  Bory  de  St.  Vincent  and  the  younger  St. 
Hilaire  the  original  movement  in  France,  which 
had  begun  with  Buff  on  and  extended  over  nearly 
a  hundred  years,  came  to  a  close.  In  the  mean- 
time, from  the  early  part  of  the  century,  the  seed 
had  been  scattering.  In  England,  on  the  Conti- 
nent, and  in  America,  the  Evolution  theory  found 
here  and  there  a  friend  who  passingly  restated, 
or  slightly  expanded,  views  already  expressed  by 
Buffon,  Lamarck,  Goethe,  or  Treviranus.  Some 
original  ideas  also  sprang  up  in  out  of  the  way 
quarters,  and  have  been  unearthed  from  ihcir 
hiding-places  since  the  theory  has  been  estab- 
lished; we  must  place  them,  as  it  were,  in  an 
alcove  of  this  history,  because  they  certainly  had 
little  or  no  direct  connection  with  th.c  main  devel- 
opment of  the  Evolution  idea;  they  were  not  jnit 
forth  as  part  of  a  general  system,  and  exerted  no 
influence  upon  either  Darwin  or  Wallace. 
p  209 


210  DARWIN. 


The  First  Half-Century. 

Darwin,  in  his  Historical  Sketch  of  the  Progress  of 
Opinion,  and  Haeckel,  in  his  Schopfungsgeschichte^ 
have  outlined  the  views  of  these  miscellaneous  con- 
tributors to  the  Evolution  theory.  The  most  sur- 
prising thought  raised  by  a  review  of  the  original 
works,  and  of  the  passages  quoted  by  the  above 
authors,  is  that  so  many  came  near  the  theory  and 
were  neither  captured  by  it  nor  drawn  on  to  its 
further  serious  exposition  as  the  key  to  the  history 
of  life.  Only  one  writer  between  1809  and  1858 
came  out  in  a  really  vigorous  and  sustained  defence 
of  the  evolutionary  system  of  the  Universe.  This 
was  the  unknown  author  of  the  Vestiges  of  Creatio7i. 

We  are  now  familiar  with  the  main  sources  of 
suggestion,  and  can  consider  some  of  these  writers 
more  critically  than  Darwin  or  Haeckel  have  done, 
from  the  standpoint  of  originality.  It  would  be 
interesting  to  know  whether^Wells,  for  example, 
who  so  clearly  set  forth  the  Natural  Selection 
theory  in  181 3,  had  seen  any  of  the  other  'antici- 
pations '  which  have  been  quoted.  So  with  the  two 
other  '  selectionists,'  Matthew  and  Naudin.  There 
were  a  series  of  original  writers  who  independently 
approached  Evolution  upon  the  embryological  side, 
such  as  Meckel,  Von  Baer,  and  Serres.  Others  ad- 
vocated or  independently  advanced  the  laws  sug- 
gested by  Buffon,  of  modification  due  to  the  direct 
action  of  environment  under  the  influence  of  wide 


MISCELLANEOUS    WRITERS. 


21  I 


geographical  distribution.  Among  these  were  Her- 
bert von  Buch,  Haldeman,  and  Schaafhausen  llie 
anthropologist.  We  find  a  partial  revival  of  Goethe's 
doctrines  by  the  botanists  Schleiden  and  Lecoq. 

Lamarckism  found  very  few  followers.  The 
Greek  idea  of  pre-existent  germs  of  species  was 
revived  by  Keyserling.  The  Aristotelian  notion  of 
an  internal  impulse  or  tendency  towards  progression 
was  more  or  less  clearly  revived  by  the  '  })rogrcs- 
sionists '  in  the  Vestiges  of  Creation  and  in  Owen's 
essay  on  the  "  Nature  of  Limbs." 

Other  writers  who  expressed  a  more  or  less  pos- 
itive belief  in  the  mutability  of  species  were :  \'irey ' 
in  1817,  Grant  ^  in  1826,  Rafinesquc^  in  1S36,  Du- 
jardin^  in  1843,  d'Halloy''  in  1846.  Chevreul'' and 
Godron,^  in  1846  and  1847,  advanced  views  some- 
what similar  to  those  of  the  younger  St.  Hilaire. 
We  note  also  Leidy  in  1850,  T.  Unger,  the  bot- 
anist, in  1852,  Carus  and  Schaafhausen^  in  1S53, 
Lecoq  in  1854.^ 

Sachs  has  shown  how  the  botanists  Brown,  Xageli, 
and  Hofmeister  were  approaching  the  theory. 

1  Article  "  Especes,"  Diet.  cV Hist.  Naturelle  de  DctervilU. 

2  Edinburgh  Philosophical  Journal,  Vol.  XIV.,  p.  283. 

3  New  Flora  of  North  America,  1836,  pp.  6,  18. 

4  Ann.  d.  Sc.  Nat.,  3^  ser.,  t.  IV.,  p.  279. 

5  Bulletins  de  V Academic  Roy.  Bruxelles,  torn.  XIII.,  p.  581. 

6  Considerations  Generales  sur  les  Variations  des  Individus.  Mem.  d.  1. 
Soc.  Roy.  et  Centr.  d' Agriculture,  1846,  p.  2S7. 

7  De  VEspece  et  des  Races.  Mem.  d.  1.  Societe  d.  Sciences  do  Nancy, 
1847,  P-  182.     Published  as  a  separate  book  in  1859. 

8  Verb.  d.  Naturh.  Ver.  d.  Preus.  Rhein,  Ueber  Bcstlitidigkeit  und  Cm- 
wandlung  der  Arten,  Bonn,  1 853. 

9  Etudes  s.  I.  Geographic  Botanique  de  V Europe,  Paris,  1S54,  p.  199- 


2 1 2  DAR  WIN. 

The  ExMbryologists. 

Let  us  first  glance  at  the  embryologlsts.  Meckel 
(i  781-1833)  followed  Wolff  (i  735-1 794)  in  the  series 
of  German  founders  of  Embryology.  Wolff  had 
emphasized  the  transmutations  of  structure,  so  that, 
from  seeds  on  the  one  side  and  eggs  on  the  other, 
came  the  many  and  diverse  organisms.  Meckel 
more  clearly  anticipated  Von  Baer  in  181 1,  in  the 
passage:  "There  is  no  good  physiologist  who  has 
not  been  struck,  incidentally,  by  the  observation 
that  the  original  form  of  all  organisms  is  one  and 
the  same,  and  that  out  of  this  one  form,  all,  the 
lowest  as  well  as  the  highest,  are  developed  in  such 
a  manner  that  the  latter  pass  through  the  perma- 
nent forms  of  the  former  as  transitory  stages." 

Von  Baer,  in  1834,  in  a  lecture  entitled  "The 
Most  General  Laws  of  Nature  in  all  Development," 
maintained  that :  "  Only  in  a  very  childish  view  of 
Nature  could  species  be  regarded  as  permanent  and 
unchangeable  types,  and  that,  in  fact,  they  can  be 
only  passing  series  of  generations,  which  have  de- 
veloped by  transmission  from  the  common  origi- 
nal form."  (See  Haeckel,  Vol.  L,  p.  112.)  Serres, 
in  his  Precis  d' Anatontie  Transce^idente  (1842, 
p.  135),  enlarged  the  arguments  of  Meckel,  and 
showed  that  the  missinsf  links  in  the  chain  of  Evo- 
lution  may  all  be  discovered,  if  we  seek  them,  in 
the  life  of  the  embryo.  When  we  compare  animals 
arrived  at  their  complete  development,  we  find  many 


BUCH. 


*>  r  ■? 


21 


differences  between  them  ;  but  if  wc  compare  them 
during  their  successive  stages  of  Evokition,  we  see 
that  these  differences  were  preceded  by  resem- 
blances ;  that,  in  fact,  Comparative  Anatomy  is  an  ar- 
rested embryology,  and  Embryology  is  a  transitory 
comparative  anatomy. 

The  Followers  of  Buffon. 

Among  those  who  took  up,  more  especially,  the 
ideas  of  Buffon  and  Linnaeus,  was  the  Rev.  \\\  Her- 
bert, in  his  work  on  the  'Amaryllidacccr'  1837,^  in 
which  he  declares  that  "horticultural  experiments 
have  established,  beyond  the  possibility  of  refutation, 
that  botanical  species  are  only  a  higher  and  more 
permanent  class  of  varieties  " ;  that  single  species  of 
each  genus  were  created  in  an  originally  plastic  con- 
dition, and  that  these  had  produced,  by  intercrossing 
and  by  variation,  all  our  existing  species.  He 
thus  takes  a  point  midway  between  Linnaeus  and 
Buffon. 

Another  Buffonian  was  Christl\n  Leopold 
VON  BucH  (i 773-1853),  a  well-known  naturalist 
and  geologist.  In  1836  he  published  an  essay 
entitled,  "Physical  Description  of  the  Canary 
Islands."  We  find  that  he  is  struck,  like  Hum- 
boldt, with  the  problem  raised  by  the  geograj^h- 
ical  distribution  of  plants ;  unlike  the  great  traveller, 
he  does  not  hesitate,  but  proceeds  to  solve  it.  He 
says : — 

1  See  also  the  fourth  volume  of  the  Horticultural  Trattsactions,  I'izi. 


214  DARWIN. 

"  The  individuals  of  genera  on  continents  spread  and  widely 
diffuse  themselves;  owing  to  differences  of  localities,  nourishment, 
and  soil,  they  form  varieties ;  and  in  consequence  of  their  isola- 
tion and  never  being  crossed  by  other  varieties  and  so  brought 
back  to  the  main  type,  they,  in  the  end,  become  a  permanent 
and  distinct  species.  Then,  perhaps,  in  other  ways,  they  meet 
with  other  descendants  of  the  original  form,  —  which  have  likewise 
become  new  varieties,  —  and  both  now  become  distinct  species,  no 
longer  mingling  with  one  another.  Not  so  on  islands.  Being 
commonly  confined  in  narrow  valleys,  or  within  the  limits  of  small 
zones,  individuals  can  reach  one  another  and  destroy  every  com- 
mencing production  of  a  permanent  variety." 

We  find  in  Von  Buch  a  clear  conception  of  the 
force  of  Isolation  or  Segregation,  which  had  been 
observed  by  Buffon,  as  we  have  seen ;  his  theory 
of  Evolution  is  also  that  of  the  direct  action  of 
environment,  advocated  by  Buffon  and  St.  Hilaire. 

In  1844  {BosL  Journ,  Nat.  Hist.,  1843-44),  Hal- 
DEMAN  gave  a  full  discussion  of  the  arguments  for 
and  against  the  '  Lamarckian  hypothesis,'  in  a  paper 
entitled  "  Enumeration  of  the  Recent  Fresh-water 
Mollusca  which  are  Common  to  North  America 
and  Europe."  He  wrote,  apparently,  from  Lyell's 
exposition  of  Lamarck,  rather  than  from  the  original 
author  himself.  He  inclined  strongly  to  the  trans- 
mutation theory,  although  hesitating  to  offer  a 
direct  opinion.  As  to  the  causes  of  modification, 
he  ignores  Lamarck's  special  theory,  and  tends 
rather  to  adopt  Buffon's  factor  of  the  direct  action 
of  the  environment. 

Herbert    Spencer  appeared  as  one  of   the  few 


CHAMBERS.  2  1  5 

out-and-out  evolutionists  before  the  publication  of 
the  Origin  of  Species.  In  his  articles,  ''  Illoi^ical 
Geology"^  and  "  The  Development  Hypr^thesis," 
he  strongly  contrasts  the  difficulties  of  the  S})ecial 
Creation  hypothesis  with  the  arguments  fur  devel- 
opment. He  does  not  enter  into  the  ([uestion  of 
the  factors  of  Evolution,  although  such  passages  as 
the  following  might  be  interpreted  as  showing  his 
inclination  to  Buffon's  theory:  "...  \w\  exist- 
ing species,  animal  or  vegetable,  when  placed  under 
conditions  different  from  its  previous  ones,  imme- 
diately begins  to  undergo  certain  changes  of  struct- 
ure fittine  it  for  the  new  conditions.  .  .  .  Tliere  is 
at  work  a  modifying  influence  of  the  kind  they 
assign  as  the  cause  of   these  specific  differences." 

The  Progressionists. 

The  Vestiges  of  the  Natural  History  of  Creation 
appeared  in  England,  in  1844, —  the  only  volume 
wholly  devoted  to  Evolution  between  the  Philoso- 
phie  Zoologiqiie,  and  the  Origin  of  Species.  It  was 
published  anonymously,  but  is  now  attributed  to 
Robert  Chambers  (1802-1871),  because  of  his  lib- 
eral views  and  considerable  knowledge  of  Geologv; 
yet  he  never  acknowledged  the  authorship  which 
still  remains  unclaimed.  Although  intelligently  and 
reverently  written,  it  met  a  scathing  reccj^ion  from 
the  reviewers  upon  the  score  of  false   science  and 

1  These    articles  were  republished   in    1865,  in    an   American   edition   of 
Spencer's  Essays,  entitled,  *'  Illustrations  of  Universal  Progress." 


2l6  DARWIN. 

infidelity.  We  may,  in  part,  excuse  the  author  for 
preserving  the  somewhat  in  valorous  incognito,  when 
we  read  in  the  North  British  Review :  "  Prophetic 
of  infidel  times,  and  indicating  the  unsoundness 
of  our  general  education,  the  Vestiges  has  started 
into  public  favour  with  a  fair  chance  of  poisoning 
the  fountains  of  science,  and  sapping  the  founda- 
tions of  religion."  The  great  sensation  which  this 
book  caused,  and  its  rapid  sale,  through  ten  edi- 
tions in  nine  years,  is  proof  that  the  truth  of 
Evolution  was  ready  to  burst  forth  like  a  volcano, 
and  that  the  times  were  ready  for  Darwin.  The 
volume  w^as  the  strongest  presentation  of  the  scien- 
tific evidences  for  Cosmic  Evolution  versus  Special 
Creation  which  had  appeared.  We  find  that  the 
author  begins  with  the  solar  system ;  his  middle 
point  is  the  origin  of  life  from  inorganic  matter, 
and  his  final  point  is  man  as  last  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  animal  kingdom.  Of  man's  origin, 
he  says : — 

"  But  the  idea  that  any  of  the  lower  animals  have  been  con- 
cerned in  any  way  in  the  origin  of  man  —  is  not  this  degrading? 
Degrading  is  a  term  expressive  of  a  notion  of  the  human  mind, 
and  the  human  mind  is  liable  to  prejudices  which  prevent  its 
notions  from  being  invariably  correct.  ...  It  has  pleased  Provi- 
dence to  arrange  that  one  species  should  give  birth  to  another, 
until  the  second  highest  gave  birth  to  man,  who  is  the  very  high- 
est :  be  it  so,  it  is  our  part  to  admire  and  to  submit." 

The  work  shows  the  author's  familiarity  with 
Buffon,    Erasmus    Darwin,    Lamarck,    St.    Hilaire, 


CHAMBERS.  2  I  / 

and  Serres.  In  the  first  edition  (p.  174),  he  rejects 
Lamarck's  hypothesis,  "which  has  incurred  much 
ridicule  and  scarcely  ever  had  a  single  defender," 
on  the  ground  that  the  arbitrary  modification  of 
form  by  the  needs  of  the  animal  could  never  have 
led  to  the  unities  and  analogies  of  structure  whicli 
we  observe.  On  the  previous  page,  he  advocates 
(without  credit)  St.  Hilaire's  modification  of  Buffon's 
hypothesis  of  the  direct  action  of  environment. 
Light,  heat,  the  chemical  constitution  of  the  at- 
mosphere, he  says,  "  may  have  been  the  immediate 
prompting  cause  of  all  those  advances  from  species 
to  species  which  we  have  seen,  upon  other  grounds, 
to  be  necessarily  supposed  as  having  taken  place  " ; 
he  continues  that  these  ideas  are  merely  thrown 
out  as  hints  towards  the  formation  of  a  just  hypoth- 
esis which  will  come  with  advancino^  knowledsfe. 
He  considers  these  natural  laws  as  instruments  in 
working  out  and  realizing  all  the  forms  of  being 
of  the  original  Divine  Conception.  These  views 
were  more  definitely  expressed  in  the  tenth  edition, 
which  appeared  in  1853  (p.  155).  Here  he  gives 
as  his  final  opinion  that  the  animal  series  is  the 
result,  first,  of  an  impulse,  imparted  by  God, 
advancing  all  the  forms  of  life,  through  the  various 
grades  of  organization,  from  the  lowest  to  the 
highest  plants  and  animals.  (This  is  the  Aristote- 
lian '  internal  perfecting  principle '  somewhat  dis- 
guised.) As  this  first  'perfecting'  impulse  would 
evidently  produce  types  not  fitted  to  their  environ- 


2 1 8  DAR  WIN. 

ment,  the  author  adds  a  second  impulse,  tending  to 
modify  organic  structures  in  accordance  with  their 
environment,  food,  nature  of  the  habitat,  meteoric 
agencies,  and  thus  to  produce  the  '  adaptations  ' 
of  the  natural  theoloo:ian. 

This  progressive  advance  with  modification  would 
also  leave  a  gap  at  the  bottom  of  the  scale ;  to  fill 
this  up,  the  author,  like  Lamarck,  supposes  that 
there  is  a  continuous  spontaneous  generation  of 
the  lowest  forms  of  life,  of  primordial  nucleated 
vesicles,  the  meeting-point  between  the  organic 
and  inorganic ;  this  generation  he  believes  to  be  an 
electro-chemical  operation. 

The  author  has  been  aptly  termed  a  '  pro- 
gressionist,' because  of  his  belief  in  the  inter- 
nal perfecting  or  '  progressing '  principle.  Owen, 
and  in  a  measure  Louis  Agassiz,  should  also  be 
classed  as  '  progressionists.' 

Richard  Owen  (1810-1892),  whose  recent  death 
marked  the  last  of  the  old  school,  was  the  leading 
comparative  anatomist  of  the  world  in  the  period 
after  Cuvier,  with  whom  he  studied. 

He  was  not,  however,  a  scientific  successor  of 
Cuvier  in  a  strict  sense,  but  followed  also  St. 
Hilaire  and  Oken  in  Philosophical  Anatomy 
and  in  a  guarded  acceptance  of  the  transmuta- 
tion theory.  From  Oken  and  Goethe  he  de- 
veloped his  famous,  but  now  wholly  discarded, 
theory  of  the  skull,  as  derived  from  the  modifica- 
tions of  vertebrae ;  the  idea  of  archetypal  or  perfect 


OWEN.  219 


type  forms  as  ancestral  to  modern,  degenerate,  or 
vestigia]   types,   seems  also   to  have   been  his  cen- 
tral thought  in  connection  with   Evolution.      The 
vast  range  of  his  knowledge  in  Comparative  Anat- 
omy and  Osteology  brought  within  his  view  series 
of  structures  in  all  stages  of  usefulness,  and  espe- 
cially those  which  were   transitory  or  vestigial   in 
existing  species,  and  persistent  or  well-developed 
in    extinct  species.     Thus   in   his   essay  on   "  The 
Nature  of  Limbs,"  in  1849,  he  wrote:   "  The  arche- 
typal idea  was  manifested  long  prior  to  the  exist- 
ence of  those  animal  species  that  actually  exemplify 
it";   and  in  the  same  work  we  find  the  followin^r 
passage :     "  To    what    natural    laws    or    secondary 
causes   the  orderly  succession   and  progression  of 
species  may  have  been  committed,  we  are,  as  yet, 
ignorant."      Again,  in   1858,  in  his  address  before 
the  British  Association,  he  spoke  of  the  axiom  "  of 
the    continuous    operation    of    creative    power,    or 
ordained  becoming  of  living  things,"  —  indicating 
that  his  belief  in  the  discovery  of  natural  law  was 
limited  by  his  belief  in  the  continuous  operation 
of   the  supernatural   law.     He  cited    the    Apteryx 
of    New    Zealand    especially,    with    its    excessively 
degenerate  wings,  as  shaking  our  confidence  in  the 
theory  of  Special  Creation.     It  thus  appears  that, 
prior  to  the  publication  of   Darwin's  work,   Owen 
was  an  evolutionist  in  a  limited  degree,  somewhat 
in  the  manner  of  Buffon ;  that  is,  in  holding  to  the 
production  of  many  modern   species   by  modifica- 


220  DARWIN. 

tion,  chiefly  in  the  line  of  degeneration  from  older 
and  more  perfect  types.  There  is  no  evidence 
whatever  that  he  was  an  evolutionist  in  the  large, 
comprehensive  sense  of  Lamarck. 

Upon  the  publication  of  the  Origin  of  Species, 
Owen  took  an  unfortunate  position  of  hostility  to 
the  evidences  for  the  natural  factors  of  Evolution 
which  Darwin  sought  to  establish,  and  at  the  same 
time  claimed  that  he  had  long  held  a  belief  in 
transmutation.  In  the  preface  of  his  Anatomy  ofj 
Vertebrates,  published  in  1866,  we  find  the  follow- 
ing sentence :  "  Therefore,  with  every  disposition  to 
acquire  information  and  receive  instruction,  as  to 
how  species  become  such,  I  am  still  compelled,  as 
in  1849,  to  confess  ignorance  of  the  mode  of  oper- 
ation of  the  natural  law  or  secondary  cause  of  their 
succession  on  the  earth.  But  that  it  is  an  'orderly 
succession,'  or  according  to  law,  and  also  '  pro- 
gressive,' or  in  the  ascending  course,  is  evident 
from  actual  knowledge  of  extinct  species."  He 
then  goes  on  to  say  that  the  basis  of  belief  in  the 
succession  and  progression  of  species  was  laid  by 
the  demonstration  of  the  unity  of  plan  as  shown 
in  special  and  general  homologies  (Vicq  d'Azyr 
and  St.  Hilaire),  by  comparison  of  embryonic 
stages  of  higher  animals  with  the  adult  forms  of 
lower  animals  (Meckel,  Von  Baer),  by  the  succes- 
sion  of  species  in  time.  He  concludes :  "  How 
inherited,  or  what  may  be  the  manner  of  operance 
of  the  secondary  cause  in  the  production  of  species. 


WELLS.  221 

remains  in  the  hypothetical  state  exemplified  by 
the  guess-endeavours  of  Lamarck,  Darwin,  XWallace, 
and  others." 

This  attitude  of  hostility  towards  modern  Evolu- 
tion was  apparently  maintained  throughout  Owen  s 
life,  and  although  he  outlived  Darwin,  I  am  not 
aware  that  he  ever  published  his  acceptance  of 
the  theory.  In  some  of  his  lectures  he  is  said  to 
have  held  that  a  limited  degree  of  degeneration 
is  due  to  disuse. 


% 


The  Selectionists. 


The  modern  theory  of  Natural  Selection  was  ex- 
pressed first  by  Dr.  W.  C.  Wells,  in  1813,  then  by 
St.  Hilaire  the  elder,  then  by  Matthew,  in  1831,  and 
finally,  with  considerably  less  clearness,  if  at  all,  by 
Naudin,  in  1852.  Darwin  gives  us  references  to 
the  two  English  writers.  That  of  Wells  is  the  first 
statement  of  the  theory  of  the  survival,  not  simply 
of  fittest  organisms,  as  understood  by  previous 
writers,  such  as  Buffon  and  Treviranus,  but  of  or- 
ganisms surviving  because  of  their  possession  of 
favourable  variations  in  single  characters.  Wells' 
paper,  read  before  the  Royal  Society  in  1S13,  was 
entitled,  "  An  Account  of  a  White  Female,  part  of 
w^hose  Skin  resembles  that  of  a  Negro  " ;  it  was  not 
published  until  1818.^  He  here  recognizes  the  prin- 
ciple of  Natural  Selection,  as  applied  to  the  races 

1  See  his  Two  Essays  upon  the  Dro)  and  Single  Vision. 


222  DAR  WIN. 

of  men,  and  to  the  explanation  of  the  origin  of  sin- 
o[le  characters.     In  Darwin's  words :  — 

"  After  remarking  that  negroes  and  mulattoes  enjoy  an  immunity 
from  certain  tropical  diseases,  he  observes,  firstly,  that  all  animals 
tend  to  vary  in  some  degree,  and,  secondly,  that  agriculturists  im- 
prove their  domesticated  animals  by  selection  ;  and  then,  he  adds, 
but  what  is  done  in  this  latter  cas^  by  art  seems  to  be  done  with 
equal  efficacy,  though  more  slowly,  by  Nature,  in  the  formation 
of  varieties  of  mankind,  fitted  for  the  country  which  they  inhabit. 
Of  the  accidental  varieties  of  man,  which  would  occur  among  the 
first  few  and  scattered  inhabitants  of  the  middle  redons  of  Africa, 
some  one  would  be  better  fitted  than  the  others  to  bear  the  diseases 
of  the  country.  This  race  would  consequently  multiply,  while  the 
others  would  decrease ;  not  only  from  their  inability  to  sustain  the 
attacks  of  disease,  but  from  their  incapacity  of  contending  with 
their  more  vigorous  neighbours.  The  colour  of  this  vigorous  race 
I  take  for  granted,  from  what  has  been  already  said,  would  be 
dark.  But  the  same  disposition  to  form  varieties  still  existing,  a 
darker  and  a  darker  race  would  in  the  course  of  time  occur ;  and 
as  the  darkest  would  be  the  best  fitted  for  the  climate,  this  would 
at  length  become  the  most  prevalent,  if  not  the  only  race,  in  the 
particular  country  in  which  it  had  originated." 

This  is  certainly  the  most  complete  of  all  the 
anticipations  of  Darwinism. 

In  1 83 1  Patrick  Matthew  published  a  work  en- 
titled Naval  Timber  and  Ar^boriculttire.  It  con- 
tained, in  an  appendix,  a  brief  statement  of  a  theory  ' 
of  the  origin  of  species  of  which  Darwin  says : 
*'  The  differences  of  Mr.  Matthew's  views  from  mine 
are  not  of  much  importance.  He  seems  to  consider 
that  the  world  was  nearly  depopulated  at  successive 
periods,  and  then  restocked,  and  he  gives  as  an  al- 


NAUDIN.  223 

ternative,  that  '  new  forms  may  be  generated  without 
the  presence  of  any  mould  or  germ  of  former  aggre- 
gates.' I  am  not  sure  that  I  understand  some 
passages;  but  it  seems  that  he  attributes  some  in- 
fluence to  the  direct  action  of  the  conditions  of  hfe. 
He  clearly  saw,  however,  the  full  force  of  the  prin- 
ciple of  Natural  Selection."  Mr.  Matthew  was  not 
satisfied  with  this  handsome  recognition  of  his  pri- 
ority ;  and  is  said  to  have  placed  on  a  subsequent 
title-page,  after  his  name,  "  Discoverer  of  the  prin- 
ciple of  Natural  Selection." 

Charles  Naudin,  a  veteran  French  botanist,  is 
the  last  of  the  French  precursors  of  Darwin.  He 
followed  Lamarck  in  the  general  transmutation  doc- 
trine, although  he  offered  quite  a  different  theory 
of  the  causes  of  transmutation.  In  an  article  en- 
titled "  Philosophical  Considerations  upon  Species 
and  Varieties,"  in  the  Revue  Horticole  (1S52,  p.  102), 
Naudin  put  forth  his  views  upon  the  origin  of  spe- 
cies, which  were  published  with  some  reluctance 
by  the  editors  of  that  journal,  because  of  their 
heretical  character,  transmutation  then  being  at 
the  height  of  its  unpopularity.  Quatrefages  has 
outlined  Naudin's  views  very  carefully,  yet  we  can- 
not perceive  with  him  any  evidence  that  Naudm 
understood  the  selection  theory.  Naudin  docs  not 
speculate  upon  the  origin  of  life.  He  bases  his 
belief  in  transmutation  upon  'unity  of  type,'  as 
proof,  not  of  a  preconceived  plan,  but  of  a  comnKMi 
parentage.     From  common  sources  existing  species 


224  DARWIN. 

have  issued  through  long  intermediate  series,  and 
the  sum  of  their  analogies  and  differences  repre- 
sents their  greater  or  less  remoteness  from  each 
other  and  from  the  common  source.  From  rela- 
tively few  primordial  types,  Nature  has  given  birth 
to  all  the  organisms  which  people  the  globe.  He 
quite  literally  follows  Lamarck's  conception  of  filia- 
tion as  a  branching  system,  but  he  widely  departs 
from  Lamarck  as  to  the  causes  of  Evolution.  With 
Goethe,  he  sees  in  living  organisms  a  'plasticity' 
which  renders  them  susceptible  to  direct  modifica- 
tion by  environment  and  opposes  the  conservative 
power  of  Atavism,  or  hereditary  transmission  of 
type.  As  with  Bory  de  St.  Vincent,  he  believes 
that  the  younger  primitive  types  presented  greater 
'  plasticity,'  but  with  advancing  ages  the  forces  of 
heredity  accumulated  and  became  stronger. 

Behind  that  '  plasticity '  and  '  Atavism,'  however, 
Naudin  places  a  higher  power,  —  '  Finality,  '  —  a 
mysterious  force,  which,  he  says,  some  would  call 
'  fatality '  and  others  '  providence,'  the  continuous 
action  of  which  upon  beings  determines  the  form, 
size,  and  duration  of  each  species  in  relation  to  the 
order  of  things  of  which  it  forms  a  part.  The 
natural  species  is  a  product,  then,  of  Atavism  and 
of  Finality.  By  Finality,  Naudin  evidently  does  not 
imply  an  internal  perfecting  tendency  in  Nature, 
but  rather  a  continuous  controlling  principle  above 
the  reign  of  secondary  causes.  Naudin  evidently 
felt  the  need  of  somethino:  behind  Natural  Law  in 


NA  UDIN. 


22$ 


the  production  of  the  adaptations  of  Nature.  The 
following  most  interesting  passage  in  Naudin's 
paper,  quoted  below,  is  that  in  which  Quatrefages 
and  Varigny  believe  that  this  author  anticipated 
the  theory  of  Natural  Selection :  — 

"We  do  not  think  that  Nature  has  made  her  species  in  a 
different  fashion  from  that  in  which  we  proceed  ourselves  in  order 
to  make  our  variations.  To  tell  the  truth,  we  have  practised  her 
very  method.  When  we  wish,  out  of  some  zoological  or  botanical 
species,  to  obtain  a  variety  which  answers  to  such  or  such  of  our 
needs,  we  select  {choisissons)  out  of  the  large  number  of  the 
individuals  of  this  species,  so  as  to  make  them  the  starting-point 
of  a  new  stirp,  those  which  seem  already  to  depart  from  the 
specific  type  in  the  direction  which  suits  us  ;  and  by  a  rational 
and  continuous  sorting  of  the  descendants,  after  an  undetermined 
number  of  generations,  we  create  types  or  artificial  species,  which 
correspond  more  or  less  with  the  ideal  type  we  had  imagined,  and 
which  transmit  the  acquired  characters  to  their  descendants  in 
proportion  to  the  number  of  generations  upon  which  our  efforts 
have  been  bearing.  Such  is,  in  our  opinion,  the  method  followed 
by  Nature,  as  well  as  by  ourselves.  She  has  wished  to  create 
races  conformable  to  her  needs ;  and  with  a  comparatively  small 
number  of  primitive  types,  she  has  successively,  and  at  different 
periods,  given  birth  to  all  the  animal  and  vegetable  species  which 
people  the  earth."  .  .  . 

We  cannot  find  in  this  passage  clear  proof  of 
anticipation  of  Darwinism.^  The  Survival  of  the 
Fittest,  as  due  to  the  possession  of  favourable  varia- 
tions, was  evidently  not  in  Naudin's  mind;   still  less 

iThis  was  Darwin's  opinion  after  carefully  studying  Naudin's  paper 
in  1859:  "I  declare  I  cannot  see  a  much  c\oscx  approach  to  Wallace  and 
me  in  Naudin  than  in  Lamarck,  — we  all  agree  in  modification  and  descent. 
...  But  I  cannot  find  one  word  like  the  struggle  for  Existence  and  Natural 
Selection."     {Life  and  Letters,  ist  ed.  II.,  p.  247.) 

Q 


226  DARWIN. 

is  it  in  his  system  of  Evolution  as  explained  above. 
A  very  careful  reading  of  this  passage  shows  that 
in  the  comparison  of  methods  pursued  by  man  and 
by  Nature,  his  emphasis  is  plainly  not  upon  the 
natural  selection  but  upon  the  natural  succession 
of  types.  Man  causes  types  to  succeed  each  other 
artificially ;  Nature  also  causes  types  to  succeed 
each  other;  he  does  not  say  that  Nature  selects 
the  fittest  types.  A  single  passage  like  this  is 
often  very  misleading ;  we  must  always  study  the 
author's  whole  context.  A  century  earlier  Buffon 
had  much  more  clearly  expressed  the  idea  of  the 
survival  of  the  fittest  species  of  plants. 

In  1855  appeared  an  article^  by  Alfred  Russel 
Wallace,  "  On  the  Law  which  has  regulated  the 
Introduction  of  New  Species."  This  contains  a 
very  strong  argument  for  the  theory  of  descent, 
as  explaining  the  facts  of  classification,  of  distribu- 
tion, and  of  succession  of  species  in  geological  time 
during  the  great  changes  upon  the  earth.  Wallace 
at  this  time  showed  himself  a  strong  and  fearless 
evolutionist,  although  he  had  not  apparently  arrived 
at  his  subsequent  theory  of  the  causes  of  change. 

State  of  Opinion  in  the  Mid-Century. 

In  all  that  has  passed  in  these  lectures  the  anti- 
evolutionists  have  been  kept  in  the  background.  Yet 

"^Annals  and  Magazine  of  Natural  History,  September,  1855.  Repub- 
lished in  1870  in  Contributions  to  the  Theory  of  Natural  Selection.  A  Series 
of  Essays.     Macmillan  &  Co.,  London. 


LYELL.  227 

they  formed  the  great  working  majority  in  numbers 
and  influence.  By  considering  only  the  evolution- 
ists, we  have  wholly  lost  the  perspective  of  opinion 
in  the  mid-century.  This  perspective  must  be  re- 
gained in  order  to  appreciate  the  revolution  of 
thought  brought  about  by  Darwin. 

Lyell,  who  believed  in  Natural  Causation  as  part 
of  his  doctrine  of  Uniformity,  had  been  teaching 
that,  "  as  often  as  certain  forms  of  animals  and  plants 
disappeared,  for  reasons  quite  unintelligible  to  us, 
others  took  their  place  by  virtue  of  a  causation, 
which  was  quite  beyond  our  comprehension."  He 
had  carefully  studied,  and  rejected,  the  Lamarckian 
explanation.  The  very  apologetic  tone  in  which 
Darwin  himself  confessed  to  Hooker,  Lyell,  and 
Gray,  in  turn,  his  nascent  belief  in  the  mutability  of 
species,  proves  that  he  did  not  consider  this  belief  as 
an  enviable  or  altogether  desirable  possession.  "  I 
formerly  spoke,"  he  wrote,  "to  very  many  naturalists 
on  the  subject  of  Evolution,  and  never  once  met  with 
any  sympathetic  agreement.  It  is  probable  that 
some  did  then  believe  in  Evolution,  but  thcv  were 
either  silent,  or  expressed  themselves  so  ambigu- 
ously, that  It  was  not  easy  to  understand  their  mean- 
ing." Later,  after  the  completion  of  the  Origin,  lie 
wrote:  "  If  I  can  only  convince  Hooker,  Lyell,  and 
Huxley  that  species  are  mutable  "  ;  again,  in  reply  to 
Huxley's  somewhat  guarded  acceptance  of  the 
theory:  "like  a  good  Catholic  who  has  received  ex- 
treme  unction,    I   can   now   sing  '  nunc  diniitlis. 


228  DARWIN. 

Think  now  of  convincing  this  high  priest  of  Evo- 
lution. In  America,  Asa  Gray  was  one  of  the  first 
to  espouse  Darwin's  cause. 

In  France,  which  we  have  found  to  be  the  home 
of  the  modern  theory  for  nearly  a  century,  Evolu- 
tion came  as  an  unwelcome  returning  exile.  As  J 
in  England,  opinion  had  finally  become  settled 
upon  the  fixity  of  species.  A  proffered  translation 
of  the  Origin  was  contemptuously  rejected  by  a 
publishing  firm  in  Paris.  Darwin  craved  an  open- 
minded  audience,  which  was  almost  impossible  to 
find  on  the  Continent.  "  Do  you  know  of  any  good 
and  speculative  foreigners  to  whom  it  would  be 
worth  while  to  send  my  book  ?  "  he  wrote  to  Huxley. 
This  is  all  by  way  of  evidence  of  the  well-known 
fact  that  all  the  progress  which  had  been  made  in 
the  long  centuries  we  have  been  considering  was, 
for  the  time,  a  latent  force.  The  Evolution  idea,\ 
with  the  numerous  truths  which  had  accumulated 
about  it,  was  again  almost  wholly  subordinate  to 
the  Special  Creation  idea.  ^ 

Darwin. 

It  is  Impossible  to  give  Darwin  his  true  relief  in 
the  brief  limits  of  these  outlines,  that  is,  in  propor- 
tion to  his  actual  work  and  influence,  as  compared 
with  his  predecessors,  and  it  is  difiicult  to  say  any- 
thing about  him  which  has  not  been  better  said  be- 
fore.      We  can,  however,  ask  two  questions  which 


DARWIN.  229 

connect  him  with  this  history,  and  can  be  brought 
into  a  stronger  Hght  than  has  been  done  hitherto. 
First,  how  much  did  Darwin  owe  to  the  evolution- 
ists who  went  before  him  ?  Second,  what  was  the 
course  of  his  own  changing  opinion  upon  the 
factors  of  Evolution? 

As  to  the  first,  he  owed  far  more  to  the  past  than 
is  generally  believed,  or  than  he  himself  was  con- 
scious of,  especially  to  the  full  and  true  conception 
of  the  Evolution  idea,  which  had  already  been 
reached,  to  the  nature  of  its  evidences,  and,  to  some 
extent,  to  the  line  of  its  factors.  Althoucrh  antici- 
pated  by  others,  Darwin  conceived,  and  worked 
out,  the  theory  of  Natural  Selection.  WhaMie 
owed  to  no  one  came  from  his  crenius  and  his  won- 
derful  application  of  the  inductive  method  of  search 
after  natural  laws.  Like  Lamarck  alone,  among  all 
his  predecessors,  Darwin  was  early  fired  with  the 
truth  of  the  idea  and  was  equally  ready  to  suffer 
social  and  scientific  ostracism  in  its  pursuit. 

Second,  I  will  endeavour  to  trace  the  influences 
which  moulded  Darwin's  earlier  and  later  opinions  ; 
how,  starting  with  some  leaning  towards  the  theo- 
ries of  modification  of  Buffon  and  Lamarck,  he 
reached  an  almost  exclusive  belief  in  his  own  theory, 
and  then  gradually  inclined  to  adopt  Buffon's, 
and  then  Lamarck's  theories  as  well,  until  in  his 
maturest  writino^s  he  embraced  a  threefold  causa- 
tion  in  the  origin  of  species.  Namely,  as  first  and 
most    important,    the    Darwin-Wallace    factor    of 


c^^ 


230  DARWIN. 

Natural  Selection;  second,  as  of  considerable  im^ 
portance,  the  E.  Darwin- Lamarck  factor  of  the  in- 
heritance of  the  effects  of  use  and  disuse ;  third,  as 
still  of  some  importance,  the  Buffon  factor  of  the 
direct  action  of  the  environment.  Yet  he  reached 
each  of  these  factors,  not  so  much  through  the 
arguments  advanced  by  their  authors,  as  by  his 
own  and  by  contemporary  observations. 

All  this  connects  Darwin  with  the  past;  not  by 
way  of  diminishing  his  lustre,  but  of  doing  the 
past  justice.  And  now  a  word  as  to  the  method 
which  enabled  him,  in  a  single  lifetime,  to  leap 
along  over  the  progress  of  centuries.  The  long 
retention  of  his  theory  from  publication  marks  the 
contrast  of  his  caution  with  the  impetuousnessof__ 
Lamarck.  He  sought  a  hundred  facts  and  obser-/ 
vations  where  his  predecessors  had  sought  qnej^V^ 
J}is_ilQ-tes  filled  volumes,  and_he  stajidg  out  as  the 
first  evolutionist  w^ho  worked  '  upon  true  Baconian 
principles.'  It  was  this  characteristic  which,  com- 
bined with  his  originality,  w^on  the  battle  for  the 
Evolution  idea.  As  Canon  Kingsley  wTote  toj 
Maurice :  "  Darwin  is  conquering  everywhere,  and 
rushing  in  like  a  flood  by  the  mere  force  of  truth 
and  fact."  When  the  grandfather,  Erasmus  Dar- 
win, held  back  at  the  inadequacy  of  his  own  theory 
to  explain  the  origin  of  adaptation  in  colour,  he  dis- 
played the  rare  scientific  temper  which  he  trans- 
mitted to  the  grandson.  Krause  has  pointed  out, 
what    is    in    fact    most   obvious,   how    largely  the 


DARWIN.  231 

thoughts  of  these  elder  and  younger  evolutionists  of 
the  same  family  ran  in  parallel  lines.  They  seemed 
to  have  inborn  tendencies  to  look  at  Nature  in  the 
same  way. 

Another  cause  of  Darwin's  success  where  all 
others  had  failed  was  his  life  at  a  time  when  the 
storehouse  of  facts  was  fairly  bursting  for  want  of  a 
generalization;  the  progress  in  every  branch  since 
Lamarck's  time  had  been  prodigious.  Again,  even 
this  combination  of  temperament  and  circumstance 
might  have  failed  but  for  Darwin's  rare  education 
from  Nature  upon  the  voyage  of  the  Beagle.  He 
had  gained  little  or  nothing  from  the  routine 
methods  of  education  in  school  and  universitv, 
as  we  learn  in  his  own  words:  "  My  scientific  tastes^ 
appear  to  have  been  certainly  innate.  ...  I  con- 
sider that  all  I  have  learnt  of  any  value  has  been , 
self-taught.  .  .  .  My  innate  taste  for  natural  his- 
tory strongly  confirmed  and  directed  by  the  voyage 
of  the  Beagkr  Humboldt's  Personal  lYarralire, 
and  Herschel's  Introductioii  to  the  Study  of  A\it2iral 
Philosophy  aroused  his  enthusiasm.  His  natural 
taste  for  Geology,  chilled  by  earlier  teachers,  was 
revived  during  an  excursion  with  Professor  Sedg- 
wick,  from  whom  he  learned  "  that  science  consists 
in  grouping  facts  so  that  general  laws  and  conclu- 
sions may  be  drawn  from  them."  This  was  in 
1831;    and   upon   his   return   he  entered  upon  his 

'  Voyage.' 

His     traininor     for    such     an     undertaking    had 


232  DARWIN. 

been  slight,  and  when  we  read  what  he  saw 
during  these  three  years,  between  the  age  of 
twenty-two  and  twenty-five,  we  realize  the  great- 
ness of  his  genius.  The  procession  of  life  in  time 
had  already  come  passingly  before  him.  He  now 
learnt  for  himself,  first,  the  great  lesson  of  uni- 
formity of  past  and  present  causes,  that  for  Nature 
'  time  is  nothing.'  The  rocks,  the  fossils,  the  life 
of  the  continents  and  islands  passed  before  his 
mind  like  a  panorama  of  that  grand  history  which 
had  come  singly  and.  in  fragments  to  every  evo- 
lutionist preceding  him.  Only  a  few  decades  back, 
Humboldt  had  taken  a  somewhat  similar  journey 
in  South  America,  and  had  written:  "This  phe- 
nomenon "  (the  distribution  of  plants)  "  is  one  of 
the  most  curious  in  the  history  of  organic  forms. 
I  say  history,  for  in  vain  would  reason  forbid  ma7z 
to  form  hypotheses  up07i  the  origin  of  things ;  he 
still  goes  on  puzzling  himself  with  insoluble  prob- 
lems relating  to  the  distribution  of  beings."  The 
same  phenomena  came  to  Darwin's  mind  as  the 
greatest  and  most  pressing  for  solution,  and  he 
returned  from  this  voyage  determined  to  solve 
the  problem  of  the  origin  of  species  by  induction. 
There  were  but  two  theories  to  choose  from,  the 
Special  Creation  theory,  and  the  Transmutation 
theory.     He  took  them  up  w^ith  an  open  mind. 

Now  let  us  see  how  the  full-grown  Evolution  idea 
had  come  to  him.  At  the  age  of  eighteen,  while 
in  the  University  of  Edinburgh,  Darwin  formed  the 


DARWIN.  233 

acquaintance  of  Dr.  Grant,  who,  on  one  occasion, 
burst  forth  into  high  praise  of  the  doctrines  of 
Lamarck.  Darwin  had  even  earlier  read  the  Zoo- 
noniia,  but  without  receiving  any  effect  from  it. 
"Nevertheless,"  he  says,  "it  is  probable  that  the 
hearing,  rather  early  in  life,  such  views  maintained 
and  praised,  may  have  favoured  my  upholding  them 
in  a  different  form  in  my  Origin  of  Species^  It  is 
very  evident  from  all  Darwin's  criticisms  of  Lamarck 
that  he  never  studied  him  carefully  in  the  original, 
so  that  all  he  owed  at  this  time  to  his  sfrandfather 

o 

and  to  Lamarck  was  the  general  idea  of  the  evolu- 
tion of  life.  Later,  however,  on  the  Beagle,  he 
took  with  him  Lyell's  Principles  of  Geology,  in 
which  Lamarck's  doctrines  are  admirably  set  forth 
and  fully  discussed,  so  that  there  is  little  doubt  that 
the  problem  of  transformation  was,  after  all,  most 
strongly  brought  to  him  by  Lamarck  indirectly 
through  Lyell's  able  treatment.  In  1834,  during 
the  voyage,  Darwin  was  still  a  special  creationist, 
yet  the  problem  of  mutability  haunted  him,  as 
it  was  brought  home  by  the  strong  evidences  of 
change  which  met  him  on  every  side.     He  says :  — 

"  I  had  been  deeply  impressed  by  the  discovery  in  the  Pampean 
collection  of  great  fossil  animals  covered  with  armour,  like  that  on 
the  existing  Armadillos  ;  secondly,  by  the  manner  in  which  closely 
allied  animals  replaced  one  another  in  proceeding  southwards  over 
the  Continent ;  and  thirdly,  by  the  South-American  character  of 
most  of  the  products  of  the  Galapagos  Archipelago,  and  more 
especially  by  the  manner  in  which  they  differed  on  each  island  of 
the  group,  none  of  the  islands  appearing  to  be  very  ancient  in  a 


234  DARWIN. 

geological  sense.  It  was  evident  that  such  facts  as  these,  as  well 
as  many  others,  could  only  be  explained  on  the  supposition  that 
species  gradually  became  modified ;  and  the  subject  haunted  me. 
But  it  was  equally  evident  that  neither  the  action  of  the  surround- 
ing conditions,^  nor  the  will  of  the  organisms  ^  (especially  in  the 
case  of  plants),  could  account  for  the  innumerable  cases  in  which 
organisms  of  every  kind  are  beautifully  adapted  to  their  habits  of 
life ;  for  instance,  the  woodpecker  or  the  tree  frog  to  climb  trees, 
or  a  seed  for  dispersal,  by  hooks  or  plumes.  I  had  always  been 
much  struck  by  such  adaptations ;  and  until  these  could  be  ex- 
plained, it  seemed  to  me  almost  useless  to  endeavour  to  prove  by 
indirect  evidence  that  species  have  been  modified." 

It  was  after  his  return  In  1837  that  Darwin 
opened  his  first  note-book  for  the  collection  of  facts 
which  bore  in  any  way  on  variation  in  animals  and 
plants  under  domestication  and  in  Nature.  He 
says :  "  I  worked  on  true  Baconian  principles,  and 
without  any  theory  collected  facts  on  a  wholesale 
scale,  more  especially  with  respect  to  domesticated 
products,  by  printed  inquiries,  by  conversation  with 
skilful  breeders  and  gardeners,  and  by  extensive 
reading."  This  is  the  most  deliberate  and  rigid 
instance  of  the  application  of  the  inductive  method 
which  we  have  met  with  In  our  whole  study  of  the 
contributors  to  the  Evolution  theory.  Darwin  soon 
saw  the  force  of  Selection  as  the  secret  of  man's 
success  In  forming  useful  races  of  animals  and 
plants;  and  in  October,  1838,  while  reading  Mal- 
thus  on  population,  the  idea  of  Selection  in  a  state 
of  Nature  first  occurred  to  him  as  the  result  of  the 

1  He  here  refers  to  Buffon's  factor. 

2  He  here  refers  to  and  misconceives  Lamarck's  factor. 


DARWIN.  235 

Struggle  for  existence,  or  rather  for  life,  between 
different  individuals  and  species.  Four  years  later 
he  briefly  set  down  his  views,  and  in  1S44  he  allowed 
himself  to  wTite  out  his  progress.  He  had  already 
reached  the  main  line  of  aro^ument  of  his  Oricrin 
of  Species,  including  the  now  familiar  tripod  of  his 
theory,  Struggle,  Variation,  and  Selection ;  also  his 
principle  of  Sexual  Selection,  yet  he  attached  much 
more  weight  to  the  influence  of  external  conditions 
and  to  the  inheritance  of  acquired  habits  than  in 
the   Origin^  of   1859. 

At  this  time  Darwin  naturally  looked  into  the 
literature  of  the  subject,  and  was  reading  Geoffroy 
St.  Hilaire.  He  carefully  read  and  abstracted 
Haldeman's  aro^uments  for  and  aijainst  the  devel- 
opment  theory.  He  studied  De  Candolle  upon  geo- 
graphical distribution,  and  Brown  upon  variation. 
He  w^as  also  fearful  lest  he  should  be  classed  with 
Lamarck.     He  wrote  to  Hooker  (Jan.  ir,  1S44):  — 

"...  I  have  now  been,  ever  since  my  return,  engaged  in  a 
very  presumptuous  work,  and  I  know  no  one  individual  who  would 
not  say  a  very  foolish  one.  I  was  so  struck  with  the  distribution 
of  the  Galapagos  organisms,  etc.,  and  with  the  character  of  the 
American  fossil  mammifers,  etc.,  that  I  determined  to  collect, 
blindly,  every  sort  of  fact,  which  could  bear  in  any  way  on  what 
are  species.  ...  At  last,  gleams  of  light  have  come,  and  I  am 
almost  convinced  (quite  contrary  to  the  opinion  that  I  started 
with)  that  species  are  not  (it  is  like  confessing  a  murder)  immuta- 
ble.    Heaven  forfend  me  from  Lamarck  nonsense  of  a  '  tendency 

1  See  Life  and  Letters,  Vol.  II.,  p.  14.  This  was  Huxley's  observation 
upon  this  essay  in  reply  to  a  request  for  a  criticism  from  the  editor.  This 
essay  should  be  published. 


Z36  DARWIN. 

to  progression,'  '  adaptations  from  the  slow  willing  of  animals,' 
etc.  !  But  the  conclusions  I  am  led  to  are  not  widely  different 
from  his  ;  though  the  means  of  change  are  wholly  so."  In  another 
place  he  wrote  :  *'  Lamarck's  work  appeared  to  me  to  be  extremely 
poor;  I  got  not  a  fact  or  idea  from  it." 

By  1856,  Darwin  had  sent  Hooker  his  manu- 
scripts. He  had  also,  as  a  matter  of  greatest  in- 
terest to  us  in  the  development  of  his  views,  swung 
entirely  away  from  any  sympathy  with  the  theories 
of  Buffon  and  Lamarck,  and  had  reached  the  ex- 
treme position  as  to  the  powers  of  Natural  Selection 
which  he  continued  to  hold  for  some  years.  Several 
passages  show  this  :  — 

"...  External  conditions  (to  which  naturalists  so  often  appeal) 
do,  by  themselves,  very  little.  How  much  they  do,  is  the  point, 
of  all  others,  on  which  I  feel  myself  very  weak.  I  judge  from 
the  facts  of  variation  under  domestication,  and  I  may  yet  get 
more  light.  .  .  .  The  formation  of  a  strong  variety  or  species  I 
look  at  as  almost  wholly  due  to  the  selection  of  what  may  be 
incorrectly  called  ^chance  '^  variations,  or  variability."  As  to  the 
powers  of  Natural  Selection,  he  wrote  to  Lyell,  in  1859  :  "  Grant  a 
simple  archetypal  creature,  like  the  Mud-fish  or  Lepidosiren,  with 
the  five  senses  and  some  vestige  of  mind,  and  /  believe  Natural 
Selection  will  account  for  the  productio7i  of  every  vertebrate  animal.^'' 

He  was  more  cautious  In  publication,  for  In  the 
first  edition  of  the  Origin  of  Species,  which  appeared 
in  the  same  year,  he  said :  "  I  am  convinced  that 
Natural  Selection  has  been  the  main,  but  not  the 
exclusive,  means  of  modification." 

In  the  use  of  '  chance,'  Darwin  recalls  to  mind  the 

^  His  meaning  in  the  use  of  the  word  *  chance  '  was  not  the  ordinary  one. 
See  6th  edition  of  the  Origin,  p.  121 :   "I  have  sometimes  spoken,"  etc. 


DAR  WIN. 


237 


old  passage  in  Aristotle  of  the  two  alternatives  in 
our  views  of  Nature.  Darwin's  standpoint  was 
different  from  either;  by  'chance  variations'  he 
refers  to  those  occurring  under  unknown  laws,  not 
under  the  '  blind  fortuity '  of  Empedocles,  nor  under 
the  'progressive  principle  '  of  Aristotle.  He  found 
no  evidence  for  an  internal  perfecting  principle. 
In  connection  with  the  first  edition  of  the  Orient. 
Tie  wrote:  "The  so-called  improvement  of  our 
short-horn  cattle,  pigeons,  etc.,  does  not  presuppose 
or  require  any  aboriginal  '  power  of  adaptation,' 
or  '  principle  of  improvement.'  If  I  have  a  second 
•edition,  I  will  reiterate  '  Natural  Selection,'  and  as 
a  general  consequence,  '  Natural  Improvement.' " 

He  mistakenly  attributed  to  Lamarck  the  view 
held  by  the  author  of  the  Vestiges,  when  he  disavowed 
holding  "  the  Lamarckian  or  Vestigian  doctrine  of 
■*  necessary  progression,'  that  is,  of  progression  inde- 
pendent of  conditions."  This  is  further  shown  in 
his  correspondence  concerning  Nageli.  (/-{/t'  (^^^^^ 
Letters,  Vol.  III.,  p.  49,  letter  to  Victor  Carus,  1S66) : 
*'  I  am,  however,  far  from  agreeing  with  him  tliat 
the  acquisition  of  certain  characters  whicli  appear 
to  be  of  no  service  to  plants,  offers  any  great  diffi- 
culty, or  affords  a  proof  of  some  innate  tendency 
in   plants    towards    perfection."^     This    standpoint 

1  Nageli,  a  distinguished  German  botanist,  believed  that  he  found  in  his 
studies  of  the  Evolution  of  plants,  proofs  of  the  existence  of  an  internal 
perfecting  principle  in  life,  by  which,  independently  of  all  outside  agencies, 
the  Plant  Kingdom  is  constantly  tending  to  a  higher  degree  of  perfection. 
These  views  were  published  in  1865.  Somewhat  similar  views  have  been 
advanced  by  Baer,  KoUiker,  and  others. 


2^8  DARWIN. 

is  further  brought  out  in  Darwin's  very  interesting 
correspondence  with  Asa  Gray  upon  the  evidence 
for  Design  in  Nature :  "  I  cannot  think  the  world, 
as  we  see  it,  is  the  result  of  chance ;  and  yet  I 
cannot  look  at  each  separate  thing  as  the  result  of 
Design.  To  take  a  crucial  example,  you  lead  me 
to  infer  that  you  believe  '  that  variation  has  been 
led  along  certain  beneficial  lines.'  I  cannot  believe 
this."  ^  Again :  "  I  must  think  that  it  is  illogical 
to  suppose  that  the  variations,  which  natural  selec- 
tion preserves  for  the  good  of  any  being,  have  been 
designed."  In  still  another  passage:"  "I  am  in- 
clined to  look  at  everything  as  resulting  from 
designed  laws,  with  the  details,  whether  good  or 
bad,  left  to  the  working  out  of  what  we  may  call 
'  chance.'  Not  that  this  notion  at  all  satisfies  me." 
This  makes  sufficiently  clear  Darwin's  opinions 
at  this  time  upon  the  theories  of  all  his  predeces- 
sors except  one,  namely,  St.  Hilaire.  Huxley,  in 
his  early  correspondence  upon  the  Origin  of  Spe- 
cies, tried  to  convince  Darwin  of  the  possibility  of 
occasional  rapid  leaps  or  changes  in  Nature,  anal- 
ogous to  those  which  St.  Hilaire  had  advocated, 
although  Huxley  probably  did  not  have  this  author 
in  mind  nor  contemplate  any  great  extremes  of 
transformation.  Darwin  held  to  his  original  prop- 
osition, handed  down  from  Leibnitz :  '  Natura  non 
facit  saltu7n',   concluding :  "  It  would  take  a  great 

1  Life  and  Letters,  Vol.  II.,  p.  353,  and  p.  378. 

2  Life  and  Letters,  Vol.  II.,  p.  312. 


DARWIN.  239 

deal  more  evidence  to  make  me  admit  that  forms 
have  often  changed  per  salttimr  ^ 

The  idea  of  the  Survival  of  the  Fittest  came  to 
Darwin  only  through  the  suggestion  of  Malthus, 
who,  in  turn,  probably  borrowed  it  from  Buffon. 
He  was  unaware  of  any  of  the  distinct  anticipa- 
tions of  his  theory.  His  attention  was  called  to 
Matthew's  article  in  i860;  to  that  of  Wells  in 
1865;  to  Naudin's  paper  in  1859.  Some  one, 
also,  called  his  attention  to  Aristotle  and  Em- 
pedocles.  It  is  possible  that  his  eye  may  have 
caught  the  passage  in  St.  Hilaire  suggesting  the 
idea,  without  his  conscious  recollection  of  it.  The 
strong  passage  in  Erasmus  Darwin's  poem  may  also 
have  survived  in  his  memory,  yet  as  far  as  Dar- 
win knew,  the  idea  of  the  '  struggle  for  life '  came 
first  from  Malthus;  it  grew  upon  him  in  reading 
De  Candolle,  W.  Herbert,  and  Lyell,  of  whom  he 
said,  "  Even  they  have  not  written  strongly  enough." 
The  force  of  this  'struggle '  gradually  intensified  itself 
in  his  mind  to  a  point  where  he  believed  it  was  such 
that  not  merely  the  entire  adaptive  form  of  the  ani- 
mal, but  even  a  slight  adaptive  variation  in  a  single 
character,  w^ould  turn  the  scale  in  favour  of  survival  ! 
This  was  during  the  period  of  his  extreme  faith 
in  the  Natural  Selection  factor,  which  reached  its 
highest  point  about  1858.  He  gradually  receded 
from  this  extreme,  as  shown  in  a  letter  to  Victor 
Cams   in    1869:   ".  .  .  I    have    been    led    to    infer 

1  Life  and  Letters,  Vol.  II.,  p.  274  (1S60). 


240  DAR  WIN. 

that  single  variations  are  of  even  less  importance, 
in  comparison  with  individual  differences,  than  I 
formerly  thought."  He  here  refers  to  the  aggre- 
o^ate  of  distinction  between  two  forms. 

This  reaction  was  accompanied  by  a  slow  change 
of  mind  towards  the  Lamarckian  factor  of  the 
inheritance  of  the  effects  of  use  and  disuse.  This 
was  brought  about,  apparently,  not  through  a  re- 
newed study  of  the  Philosophie  Zoologique,  but  by 
Darwin's  own  observations  upon  the  domesticated 
animals,  especially  in  his  records  of  structures 
which  were  developing  and  degenerating  entirely 
apart  from  the  main  course  of  the  artificial  selec- 
tion of  breeders,  as  well  as  from  the  weight  of 
utility  or  usefulness  in  the  scale  of  survival  in 
Nature.  He  may  have  been  influenced  also  by  the 
thorough  Lamarckism  of  Herbert  Spencer,  although 
this  does  not  appear  in  the  Life  and  Letters. 

Darwin's  gradual  recession  from  his  exclusion 
of  the  Buffon- St.  Hilaire  factor  also  evidently 
began  in  course v  of  the  preparation  of  his  great 
work  upon  '  Variation.'  He  was  influenced  by  his 
own  wider  range  of  observation,  and,  later,  by  the 
observations  of  Wagner,  of  Allen,  and  others.  As 
early  as  1862  he  wrote  to  Lyell  {Life  and  Letters, 
Vol.  n.,  p.  390):  — 

"  I  hardly  know  why  I  am  a  little  sorry,  but  my  present  work  is 
leading  me  to  believe  rather  more  in  the  direct  action  of  physical 
conditions.  I  presume  I  regret  it,  because  it  lessens  the  glory  of 
Natural  Selection,  and  is  so  confoundedly  doubtful.     Perhaps  I 


DARWIN.  241 

shall  change  again  when  I  get  all  my  facts  under  one  point  of 
view,  and  a  pretty  hard  job  this  will  be." 

Fourteen  years  later,  Darwin  had  positively  in- 
cluded Buffon's  factor  among  the  causes  of  Evolu- 
tion.    In  1876  he  wrote  to  Moritz  Waener :  — 

"When  I  wrote  the  Origin,  and  for  some  years  afterwards,  I 
could  find  little  good  evidence  of  the  direct  action  of  the  environ- 
ment ;  now  there  is  a  large  body  of  evidence,  and  your  case  of 
the  Saturnia  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  of  which  I  have  heard." 

In  1878  he  fully  included^  Wagner's  theory  as 
one  cause  of  origin  of  species,  through  the  direct 
action  of  environment  in  the  same  country  or 
through  geographical  isolation.  In  1877  he  also 
wrote  to  Morse :  "  I  quite  agree  about  the  high 
value  of  Mr.  Allen's  works,  as  showing  how  much 
change  may  be  expected  apparently  through  the 
direct  action  of  the  conditions  of  life."  There  is 
thus  no  doubt  that  the  idea  of  Natural  Selection, 
as  almost  the  sole  factor,  came  to  a  climax  in  Dar- 
win's mind  and  then  gradually  appeared  less  im- 
portant and  exclusive.  In  preparing  his  work  on 
'  Variation,'  the  importance  of  the  problem  of 
heredity  came  before  him,  and  in  writing  to  Mux- 
ley,  in  1865,^  he  gives  a  'brief  of  his  point  of  view 
at  the  time,  in  concisely  stating  what  a  working 
theory  of  heredity  should  embrace  :  — 

"The  case  stands  thus:  in  my  next  book  I  shall  publish  long 
chapters  on  bud  and  seminal-variation,  on  inheritance,  reversion, 

1  Letter  to  Semper,  Life  and  Letters,  Vol.  III.,  p.  1 60. 

2  Life  and  Letters,  Vol.  III.,  p.  44. 


242  DARWIN. 

effects  of  use  and  disuse,  etc.  I  have  also,  for  many  years, 
speculated  on  the  different  forms  of  reproduction.  Hence  it 
comes  to  be  a  passion  with  me  to  try  to  connect  all  such  facts 
by  some  sort  of  hypothesis." 

Here,  again,  Darwin  reached  independently  an 
hypothesis  which  had  been  already  formulated  by 
Buffon,  Maupertuis,  and  foreshadowed  by  Democri- 
tus  and  Hippocrates.  Concerning  Buffon's  unex- 
pected anticipation,  he  wrote  to  Huxley,  to  whom 
he  had  submitted  his  manuscript :  — 

^'  I  have  read  Buffon :  whole  pages  are  laughably  like  mine. 
It  is  surprising  how  candid  it  makes  one  to  see  one's  views  in 
another  man's  words.  .  .  .  Nevertheless,  there  is  a  fundamental 
distinction  between  Buffon's  views  and  mine.  He  does  not  sup- 
pose that  each  cell  or  atom  of  tissue  throws  off  a  little  bud.  ..." 

Among  Darwin's  last  words  upon  the  factors  of 
Evolution  are  those  in  the  sixth  edition  of  the 
Origin  of  Species  (1880,  p.  424).  In  the  modi- 
fication of  species  he  refers  as  causes,  successively 
to  his  own,  to  Lamarck's,  and  to  Buffon's  factor  in 
the  followino^  clear  lansruaQ^e:  "This  has  been 
effected  chiefly  through  the  natural  selection  of 
numerous,  successive,  slight,  favourable  variations; 
aided  in  an  important  manner  by  the  inherited 
effects  of  the  use  and  disuse  of  parts ;  and  in  an  un- 
important manner  —  that  is,  in  relation  to  adaptive 
structures,  whether  past  or  present  —  by  the  direct 
action  of  external  conditions,  and  by  variations 
which  seem  to  us  in  our  ignorance  to  arise  spon- 
taneously."    Later,  in    the  Descent  of  Man  (1881, 


DARWIN  AND    WALLACE.  243 

p.  32),  he  speaks  of  the  effects  of  use  as  probably 
becoming  hereditary,  showing  that  he  still  did  not 
consider  the  evidence  as  convincing  as  that  relat- 
ing to  disuse  [loc,  cit.,  p.  32).  "  The  chief  agents 
in  causing  organs  to  become  rudimentary  seem 
to  have  been  disuse,  at  that  period  of  life  when  the 
organ  is  chiefly  used  (and  this  is  generally  during 
maturity),  and  also  inheritance  at  a  corresponding 
period  of  life."  It  should  be  repeated  that  these 
decided  changes  of  opinion  were,  in  part,  a  tacit 
acceptance  of  work  done  elsewhere,  especially  in 
Germany,  rather  than  the  direct  outcome  of  Dar- 
win's own  observations.  In  part  they  certainly 
reflected  his  own  observations  and  maturer  judg- 
ment. 

Darwin  and  Wallace. 

Finally,  we  record  the  most  striking  of  all  the 
many  coincidences  and  independent  discoveries  in 
the  history  of  the  Evolution  idea.  Darwin's  long 
retention  of  his  theory  from  publication  between 
1837  and  1858  came  near  costing  him  his  eminent 
claims  to  priority ;  for  in  the  latter  year  Alfred 
Russel  Wallace  had  also  reached  a  similar  theorv. 
By  the  happy  further  coincidence  of  a  friendship, 
which  always  remained  of  the  most  generous  order, 
Wallace  sent  his  freshly  completed  manuscript  to 
Darwin.  But  for  his  friends  Hooker  and  Lyell, 
Darwin  would  even  then  have  held  back  his  work. 
By  their  co-operation,  two  modest  papers  appeared 


244 


DARWIN. 


in  \}v^^  Journal  of  the  LinncEaii  Society,  June  30,  1858, 
the  first  consisting  of  an  abstract  of  Darwin's  manu- 
scripts of  1839  and  1844,  from  the  second  part, 
entitled  "  On  the  Variation  of  Organic  Beings  in  a 
State  of  Nature;  on  the  Natural  Means  of  Selec- 
tion ;  on  the  Comparison  of  Domestic  Races  and 
True  Species";  also  the  letter  of  1857  to  Asa 
Gray.  The  second  consisted  of  the  paper  by  Wal- 
lace, written  in  February,  1858,  entitled  "On  the 
Tendency  of  Varieties  to  depart  indefinitely  from 
the  Original  Type." 

The  line  of  thought  in  these  two  papers  is  almost 
directly  parallel,  as  shown  in  these  columns:  — 


Darwin. 

There  is  in  Nature  a  struggle 
for  existence,  as  shown  by  Mal- 
thus  and  De  Candolle. 

Rapid  muhiplication,  if  un- 
checked, even  of  slow-breeding 
animals  like  the  elephant  .   .   . 

Great  changes  in  the  environ- 
ment occur. 

It  has  been  shown  in  a  former 
part  of  this  work  that  such  changes 
of  external  conditions  would,  from 
their  acting  upon  the  reproductive 
system,  probably  cause  the  or- 
ganization ...  to  become  plastic. 

Can  it  be  doubted  that  .  .  . 
any  minute  variation  in  struct- 
ure, habits,  or  instincts,  adapting 
that  individual  better  to  the  new 
conditions,  would  tell  upon  its 
vigour  and  health  ? 


Wallace. 

The  life  of  wild  animals  is  a 
struggle  for  existence  ...  in  which 
the  weakest  and  least  perfect  must 
always  succumb. 

Even  the  least  prolific  of  ani- 
mals would  increase  rapidly  if 
unchecked. 

A  change  in  the  environment 
may  occur. 

(No  cause  of  variation  as- 
signed.) 

Varieties  do  frequently  occur 
spontaneously. 

All  variations  from  the  typical 
form  have  some  definite  effect, 
however  slight,  on  the  habits  or 
capacities  of  the  individuals. 
Abundance  or  rarity  of  a  species 
is  dependent  on  its  more  or  less 


DARWIN  AND    WALLACE.  245 

In  the  struggle  it  would  have  a  perfect  adaptation.    If  any  species 

better  chance   of  surviving;    and  should  produce  a  variety  having 

those  of  the  offspring  who  inher-  slightly  increased  powers  of  pre- 

ited  the  variation,  be   it   ever  so  serving     existence,    that     variety 

slight,  would  also  have  a  better  must  inevitably  in  time  acquire  a 

chance.  superiority  in  numbers. 

Remarkable  as  this  parallelism^  is,  it  is  not  com- 
plete. The  line  of  argument  is  the  same,  but  the 
poi7it  d'apptii  is  different.  Darwin  dwells  upon 
variations  in  single  characters,  as  taken  hold  of  by 
Selection ;  Wallace  mentions  variations,  but  dwells 
UYton  full-formed  varieties,  as  favourably  or  unfavour- 
ably adapted.  It  is  perfectly  clear  that  with  Darwin 
the  struggle  is  so  intense  that  the  chance  of  sur- 
vival of  each  individual  turns  upon  a  single  and 
even  slight  variation.  With  Wallace,  Varieties  are 
already  presupposed  by  causes  W'hich  he  does  not 
discuss,  a  change  in  the  environment  occurs,  and 
those  varieties  w^hich  happen  to  be  adapted  to  it 
survive.  There  is  really  a  wdde  gap  between  these 
two  statements  and  applications  of  the  theory. 

Unlike  Darwin,  Wallace  has  conserved  his  earlier 
views  entire ;  he  is  still  a  rigid  Natural  Selection- 
ist, and  has  incorporated  the  extreme  views  of  Dar- 
win upon  the  importance  of  variations  in  single 
characters.  As  one  of  the  leaders  of  thought  in 
contemporary  Evolution,  Wallace  belongs  chiefly 
to  the  after-Darwin  period. 

1  A  further  striking  feature  in  this  parallelism  of  thought  is  that  W^allace, 
like  Darwin,  first  caught  the  suggestion  of  the  struggle  for  existence  from 
reading  Malthus. 


246  BAR  WIN. 


Retrospect. 

Now  that  we  have  brought  together  the  evi- 
dences, our  difficulty  Hes  in  choosing  the  via  media 
between  an  overestimate  and  an  underestimate  of 
actual  continuity. 

From  the  '  formless  masses '  of  the  thought  of 
Empedocles  we  have  traced  Evolution  to  its  per- 
fect expression  by  Darwin.  The  metaphysical  en- 
vironment of  the  idea  has  been  seen  shaping  itself 
in  the  better  understanding  of  the  relations  of  Causa- 
tion, Design,  and  Creation,  while  the  natural  en- 
vironment has  been  seen  expanding  with  the 
biological  sciences.  Two  of  Aristotle's  principles, 
midway  between  physics  and  metaphysics,  seem  to 
have  exerted  a  great  and  often  misleading  influence. 
I  refer  first  to  his  '  perfecting  tendency '  which  led 
Leibnitz  and  all  his  naturalist  and  speculative 
followers  away  from  the  search  for  a  natural  cause 
of  Adaptation  ;  and  second,  his  '  unity  of  type,' 
which,  as  finally  developed  in  the  mind  of  St.  Hilaire 
and  Owen,  proved  to  be  a  compromise  between 
Special  Creation  and  Evolution. 

The  idea  of  Evolution,  rooted  in  the  cosmic  evo- 
lution and  '  movement '  of  Heraclitus  and  Aristotle, 
has  passed  to  the  progressive  development  and 
succession  of  life  seen  in  Empedocles,  Aristotle, 
Bruno,  Descartes,  Goethe,  and  in  the  more  concrete 


RETROSPECT.  247 

*  mutability  of  species '  of  Bacon,  Leibnitz,  Buffon, 
Lamarck,  and  St.  Hilaire. 

The  direct  transition  from  the  inoro^anic  to  the 
organic  is  seen  to  have  had  a  host  of  friends,  nearly 
to  the  present  time,  including,  besides  all  the  Greeks, 
Lucretius,  Augustine,  Maillet,  Buffon,  Erasmus 
Darwin,  Lamarck,  Treviranus,  Oken,  and  Chambers- 
Then  we  have  seen  the  difficulty  of  '  origin  '  removed 
one  step  back  by  the  '  pre-existent  germs  '  of  Anaxa- 
goras,  revived  by  Maillet,  Robinet,  Diderot,  and 
Bonnet.  Again,  the  rudiments  of  the  monistic  idea 
of  the  psychic  properties  of  all  matter,  foreshadowed 
by  Empedocles,  are  seen  revived  by  Maupertuis  and 
Diderot.  The  difficulty  of  origin  has  been  avoided 
by  the  assumption  of  primordial  minute  masses, 
which  we  have  seen  developed  from  the  '  soft  germ  ' 
of  Aristotle,  to  the  '  vesicles '  and  '  filaments '  of 
Buffon,  Erasmus  Darwin,  Lamarck,  Oken,  and 
finally  into  our  primordial  protoplasm. 

To  the  inquiry :  Where  did  life  first  appear  ?  we 
find  the  answer,  '  in  the  sea,'  given  by  Thales, 
Anaximander,  and  Maillet;  'between  sea  and  land,' 
is  the  answer  of  Anaximenes,  Diogenes,  Democritus, 
and  Oken;  'from  the  earth,'  is  the  solitary  reply  of 
Lucretius.  Now  we  are  too  wise  to  answer  it.  For 
the  succession  of  life  we  have  followed  the  '  asccnd- 
ino;  scale '  of  Aristotle,  Bruno,  Leibnitz,  and  others, 
until  Buffon  realized  its  inadequacy,  and  Lamarck 
substituted  the  simile  of  the  branching  tree.  Of 
man  as  the  summit  of  the  scale,  and  still  in  process 


248  DAR  WIN. 

of  becoming  more  perfect  in  his  endowments,  we 
learn  from  Empedocles,  Aristotle,  Robinet,  Diderot, 
Erasmus  Darwin,  Lamarck,  and  Treviranus. 

Man's  origin  and  descent  has  always  been  of  the 
first  interest  to  man  himself.  The  idea  of  his  slow 
development  is  suggested  by  the  crude  observation 
of  Anaximander,  and  takes  its  more  scientific  form 
in  Lucretius,  Bruno,  and  Leibnitz.  Man's  relation 
to  other  primates  as  a  result  of  evolution  is  de- 
veloped by  Bruno,  Leibnitz,  Buffon,  Kant,  Herder. 
Bruno  perceives  the  importance  of  the  tool-bearing 
hands,  and  most  interesting  is  the  appreciation  by 
Buffon,  Helvetius,  and  Erasmus  Darwin,  that  the 
opposition  of  the  thumb,  rendering  its  bearers  fittest 
to  survive,  may  have  originated  as  a  happy  accident. 

Of  the  greatest  moment  of  all,  is  our  pursuit  of 
the  problem  of  Adaptation  as  it  first  presented  itself 
to  Empedocles,  Democritus,  Anaxagoras;  and 
second,  as  it  became  connected  with  Causation 
in  the  minds  of  Aristotle,  Buffon,  Kant,  Erasmus 
Darwin,  Goethe,  and  Charles  Darwin.  Around  the 
solution  of  this  problem  we  have  seen  centre  the 
development  of  four  conceptions ;  namely^_o£j  en- 
vironment,' '  struggle  for  existence,'  '  variation,'  and 
'  survival  of  the  fittest.' 

We  have  seen  first  how  ideas  of  Adaptation 
in  immutable  types  were  recast  into  the  grander 
Adaptation  in  mutable  types  under  changing  en- 
vironment ;  also  how  the  full  modern  conception  of 
Adaptation    slowly    arose     through    philosophical 


RETROSPECT.  249 

Anatomy  and  Embryology,  as  pursued  by  Buffon, 
Kant,  Erasmus  Darwin,  Lamarck,  Goethe,  Trevi- 
ranus,  St.  Hilaire,  and  Serres.  The  significance  of 
'degeneration'  and  of  'vestigial  structures'  mean- 
while grew  clear  in  the  interpretations  of  Sylvius, 
Buffon,  Kant,  Goethe,  and  Lamarck. 

'  Environment'  as  a  transforming  factor  was  ap- 
parently observed  late,  for  we  have  seen  it  first  de- 
velop in  the  writings  of  Bacon,  Maillet,  Buffon,  Kant, 
Erasmus  Darwin,  Lamarck,  Treviranus,  St.  Hilaire, 
St.  Vincent,  Buch,  and  others.  The  'strucrcde  for 
existence '  we  have  traced  to  Anaximander,  and 
more  clearly  in  its  bearing  upon  feeding  and  propa- 
gation, to  Empedocles  and  Lucretius.  Buffon  and 
Malthus  greatly  developed  it  afresh,  while  Erasmus 
Darwin,  Treviranus,  De  Candolle,  and  others  gave 
it  its  modern  form.  '  Variation  '  is  of  seventeenth 
century  origin,  at  least  when  considered  parti \'  as 
evidence  of,  partly  as  a  factor  in.  Evolution  ;  we 
have  seen  it  treated  by  Bacon,  Leibnitz,  INLaupertuis, 
Lamarck,  and  St.  Hilaire,  terminating  with  its  full 
exposition  in  the  first  half  of  the  century  as  a  link 
of  Darwinism. 

The  broad  conception  of  fortuitous  combinations 
and  of  accidental  variations  in  relation  to  Survival 
and  hence  to  Adaptation,  is  found  to  be  one  of  the 
most  ancient  scientific  ideas  of  which  we  have  record 
in  history.  It  is  seen  to  follow  two  lines.  The  first 
is  the  survival  of  the  fittest  forms  or  types  of  life, 
considered   as  a  whole,   as   a  collection   of  similar 


250  DARWIN. 

individuals,  or  as  a  '  variety '  in  modern  terms.  This 
we  have  seen  originate  with  Empedocles  and  receive 
the  support  of  Epicurus  and  Lucretius,  and  much 
more  recently  of  Hume,  Diderot,  and  others.  In 
its  relation  to  modern  Evolution,  we  see  it  brought 
out  afresh  by  Buffon,  Malthus,  Kant,  Wells,  Mat- 
thew, and  Wallace.  The  second  line  is  the  survival 
of  certain  types,  because  of  the  possession  of  some 
fortuitously  adaptive  combination  of  parts  or  of 
some  favourable  variation  in  a  single  organ.  This 
conception  we  also  trace  from  Diderot  back  to 
Empedocles ;  but  it  is  apparently  a  spontaneous 
and  independent  discovery  as  we  find  it  in  Buffon 
.and  Helvetius,  who  transmit  it  to  Erasmus  Darwin, 
w^  Finally,  it  is  again  rediscovered,  or  grandly  evolved 
by  induction  and  observation  by  Charles  Darwin, 
who  raises  it  to  its  present  magnitude  as  a  central 
principle  in  the  living  world. 

An  entirely  distinct  line  of  thought  is  that  of 
Erasmus  Darwin  and  of  Lamarck  that  life  itself  is 
a  process  of  adaptation  to  new  conditions  and  that 
the  adaptive  changes  acquired  in  course  of  life  are 
transmitted  and  accumulated  in  successive  genera- 
tions. This  is  a  theory  for  adaptations  of  certain 
kinds  which  awaits  further  proof. 

It  is  also  for  the  future  to  determine  whether 
the  predecessors  of  Darwin  and  Darwin  himself,  in 
the  principle  to  which  he  gave  a  life  of  thought, 
have  fully  answered  the  old,  old  problem,  or  whether 
we  shall  look  for  still  another  Newton  in  our  phi- 
losophy of  Nature. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

For  the  general  succession  of  evolutionists,  in  Philosophy 
especially,  the  student  is  referred  to  Huxley  in  his  article  "  Evolu- 
tion "  in  the  Encyclopcedia  Britannica,  to  Haeckel  in  his  History  of 
Creation,  and  to  Schultze  in  his  Philosophie  der  Natiirwissen- 
schaft.  Upon  the  long  discussion  of  the  problem  of  the  mutability 
of  species  which  occurred  between  the  time  of  Linnaeus  and  of 
St.  Hilaire,  by  far  the  best  work  is  Isidore  St.  Hilaire's  Histoire 
Naturelle  Generate.  I  have  also  depended  largely  upon  the  full 
and  critical  studies  of  the  French  evolutionists  by  Perrier,  Qua- 
trefages,  Martins,  Varigny,  Lanessan.  The  German  natural  phi- 
losophers and  poets  have  been  explored  for  their  Evolution 
tendencies  in  special  studies  by  Schultze,  Barenbach,  and  Haeckel. 
Goethe  especially  has  been  searched  with  rich  results.  We  owe 
to  Germany,  also,  Krause's  Life  of  Erasmus  Darwin.  To  the 
English  writers  we  owe  the  articles  already  mentioned,  a  number  of 
biographies  in  the  Britannica,  Darwin's  outline  in  his  introduction 
of  the  Origin  of  Species,  F.  Darwin's  Life  and  Letters  of  Charles 
Darwin,  and  the  vigorous  interchange  of  opinions  upon  Evolu- 
tion in  theological  literature  between  Huxley  and  Mivart.  In 
this  country  Packard  has  contributed  an  article  to  the  Standard 
Natural  History,  but  Lamarckism  in  America  is  a  subject  which 
still  deserves  careful  study. 

Zeller  has  given  us  the  most  critical  and  reliable  studies  of  the 
early  or  pre- Aristotelian  Greek  evolutionists.  For  the  later  Greek 
period,  I  have  referred  to  the  general  works  of  Lange  anil  l-^rd- 
mann;  and  to  the  special  studies  of  Cotterill,  Moore,  Guttler, 
Brunnhofer,  and  others  for  the  later  Greek  and  Mediaeval  perio<l. 
Lewes'  Aristotle  is  a  mine  of  information,  yet  the  author  strangely 

251 


252  BIBLIO  GRAPH  Y. 

enough  wholly  fails  to  appreciate  or  bring  forward  Aristotle's 
important  contributions  to  the  Evolution  idea.  In  fact,  Aristotle 
has  been  generally  ignored  in  this  connection. 

General  Articles  and  Works. 

Isidore  Geoffroy  Saint-Hilaire  :  '  Histoire  Naturelle  Generale  des 

Regnes  Organiques/     Paris,  1 844-1 862.     3  vols. 
Huxley,   Thomas   H.:   'Evolution.'     Enc.   Britannica,   Vol.   VIII., 

PP-  744-772. 
Haeckel,  Ernst  :  'NatUrliche  Schopfungsgeschichte.'     ist  ed.,  1868. 

4th  ed.,  'The  History  of  Creation'  (translation),  1892. 

2  vols. 
Erdmann  :  '  History  of  Philosophy.'     3  vols.     Swann,  Sonnenschein 

&  Co.,  London. 
Lange:  'History  of  Materialism.' 
FiSKE  :  '  Outlines  of  Cosmic  Philosophy.' 
Schultze,    Fritz  :    '  Philosophie    der    Naturwissenschaft.'      Leipsic, 

1881.     2  vols. 
Packard,  A.  S. :    Introduction  to  the  '  Standard  Natural   History.' 

Boston,  1885. 

* 

The  Greek  Period. 

Zeller,  Edward  :  '  History  of  the  Greek  Philosophy.' 

'  Ueber  die  Griechischen  Vorganger  Darwin's.'     Abhand. 

d.  Berliner  Akad.,  1878,  p. 
Lewes,  G.  H.:    'Aristotle;    a   Chapter  in  the  History  of  Science.' 

London,  1864. 
Aristotle,  Works  of.     Taylor's  translation.     6  vols. 
G.  Pouchet:  '  La  Biologie  Aristotelique.'     Paris,  1885. 
Romanes,   George  J.:    'Aristotle  as  a   Naturalist.'    Contemporary 

Review,  1891. 
Cotterill,  Henry  :  '  Does  Science  aid  Faith  in  Regard  to  Creation? ' 

London,  1883. 
Moore,  Aubrey  :  '  Science  and  Faith.' 
Guttler,   C.  :    '  Lorenz   Oken   und   sein  Verhaltniss   zur   Modernen 

Entwickelungslehre.'     Leipsic,  1884. 
Brunnhofer:  'Giordano  Bruno's  Welt  Anschauung.'     Leipsic,  1882. 
Huxley,  T.  H.:  'Critiques  and  Addresses.'     London,  1883. 
MiVART,  St.  George:  'On  the  Genesis  of  Species.'     London,  1871. 

'Lessons  from  Nature.'     London,  1876. 


BIB  LI  0  GRAPH  Y.  253 


The  Natural  PJiilosopJiers  and  Speculative  Evolutionists. 

Bacon:    'Novum   Organum  and  Advancement  of  Learning.'     Bohn 

Edition. 
ScHULTZE,  Fritz  :  -  Kant  und  Darwin,  ein  Beitrag  zur  Ge.schichte  der 

Entwickelungslehre.'     Jena,  1875. 
Barenbach,  Friedrich  von  :   '  Herder  als  Vorganger  Darwin's  und 

der  Modernen  Naturphilosophie  '     Berlin,  1877. 
De  Maupertuis,  Peter  Louis  Moreau  :   'Syst6me  de  la  Nature.* 

Paris,   1 75 1. 
De  Maillet,  M.  :  'Telliamed  ou  Entretiens  d\m  Philosoplie  Indien 

sur  la  diminution  de  la  Mer,  avec  un  Missionaire  Franc^ais.' 

Basle,  1749.     2^'"«  ed.     Paris,  1754.     2  vols. 
Lewes,  G.  H.  :  'A  Precursor  of  the  Vestiges.''     (Robinet.) 
Eraser's  Magazine,  November,  1857,  pp.  526-531. 
Robinet,  J.  B.  :  '•  Considerations  Philosophiques  de  la  Gradation  Natu- 

relle  des  Formes  de  I'etre,  ou,  les  Essais  de  la  Nature  qui 

apprend  a  faire  rHomme.'     Paris,  1768. 
Varigny,  Henri  de  :    '  La  Philosophie  Biologique  aux  xvii*^  et  xviii* 

Siecles.'     Revue  Scientifique,  Aug.  29,  1889,  pp.  226-234. 
'Experimental  Evolution.''     London,  1892. 
Descartes,  Rene:  '  Principes  de  la  Philosophie.'     Paris,  1637. 
Ducasse:  '  Etude  Historique  et  Critique  sur  le  Transformisme.'   Paris. 
Bonnet,  C.  :  'La  Palingenesie  Philosophique,  ou  Id^es  sur  I'Etat  pass^ 

et   sur  TEtat   futur  des   f^tres  Vivants.'     Geneva,  1770." 

2  vols. 
Duret,  Claude  :  '  Histoire  Admirable  des  Plantes  et  Herbes  esmer- 

veillables  et  miraculeuses  en  Nature'  ....     Paris,  1609. 
Oken,  Lorenz:  'Elements  of  Physiophilosophy '  (translation).     Lon- 
don, Ray  Society,  1847. 
Morley,  John  :    '  Dider6t  and  the  Encyclopaedists.'     London. 


The  French  Evolutionists. 
M.J.  de  Lanessan:  'Buffon  et  Dar\vin.'     Revue  Scientifique,   1889. 

1°,  pp-  385-391 ;  2°,  pp.  425-432- 

Edmond  Perrier:  'La  Philosophie  Zoologique  avant  Darwin.'  2«"'* 
ed.     Paris,  1886.     (Bibl.  Scient.  Internal. ,  XLVII.) 

A.  de  Quatrefages  :  '  Darwin  et  ses  Prdcurseurs  Frangais,  Etude  sur 
le  Transformisme.'  Paris,  1892.  (Bibl.  Scient.  Internal., 
LXXV.) 


254  BIBLIO  GRAPHY. 

Lamarck,  J.  B.  P.  A.  de:  '  Recherches  sur  TOrganization  des  Corps 
Vivants/     Paris,  1802. 

*  Philosophie    Zoologique.'      Paris,    1809.      Edition,   Charles 

Martin's.     Paris,  1873.     2  vols. 

*  Histoire  Naturelle  des  Animaux  sans  Vertebras.'     2^™^  ed. 

Paris,  1835-1845.     II  vols. 
St.    Hilaire,    Geoffroy  :    '  Principes   de    Philosophic   Zoologique.* 

Paris,  1830. 
St.  Hilaire,  Isidore  :  '  Vie  de  Geoffroy  St.  Hilaire.'    Paris. 

The  English  and  Ger7nan  Evolutionists. 

Darwin,   Erasmus:    ^Zoonomia;    or,    the  Laws   of   Organic  Life.' 

London,  1794.     2  vols. 
^The  Botanic  Garden,'  1788. 

'The  Temple  of  Nature.'     London,  1803.     (Posthumous.) 
Krause,  Ernst,  and   Darwin,  Charles:  'Erasmus  Darwin.'     Lon^ 

don,  1879. 
Treviranus,  Gottfried  Reinhold  :  ♦  Biologic  oder  Philosophic  der 

lebenden  Natur.'     Gottingen,  1802.     6  vols. 
'  Erschcinungen    und     Gcsctze    des    Organischen    Lebens.'* 

Bremen,  183 1.     2  vols. 
Kalischer,    S.  :    'Goethe  und  Darwin'  in  'Wage,'  Nr.  11  and    12. 

Berlin,  1876. 
Haeckel,  Ernst  :    '  Die  Naturanschauung  von  Darwin,  Goethe,  und 

Lamarck.'     Jena,  1882. 
Darwin,  Charles:  'Origin  of  Species.'    6th  ed.  London,  1880. 
Darwin,  Francis:  'Life  and  Letters  of  Charles  Darwin.'     London, 

1888.     3  vols. 


INDEX. 


Abiogenesis,  among  the  Greeks,  23,  27 ; 
Anaximenes,  35;  Diogenes,  36; 
Xenophanes,  36 ;  Empedocles,  37 ; 
Democritus,  42;  Aristotle,  48;  Epi- 
curus, 60 ;  Lucretius,  62 ;  theory  of, 
in  relation  to  Creation,  Augustine, 
71;  Maillet,  112;  Oken,  126,  127; 
E.  Darwin,  140 ;  Lamarck,  178 ;  Tre- 
viranus,  192;  St.  Vincent,  205 ;  Cham- 
bers, 218.  Between  water  and  land, 
Anaximander,  34;  Xenophanes,  36. 
Direct  transition  frotn  inorganic  mat- 
ter, Aristotle,  48.  Marine,  Thales, 
33;  Anaximander,  34;  Maillet,  no. 
Terrestrial  slime,  or  earth  and  water, 
Anaximenes,  35  ;  Diogenes,  36 ;  De- 
mocritus, 42;  Oken,  125.  Terrestrial, 
direct  from  the  soil,  Lucretius,  62. 

Abubacer,  Oriental  romances  upon  '  Na- 
ture Man,'  77. 

Acquired  characters,transmission  of,Aris- 
totle,  46;  Sylvius,  26;  rapid  acqui- 
sition, Maillet,  no;  E,  Darwin,  145- 
148;  Lamarck,  165 -171;  Goethe, 
186;   Darwin,  240. 

Adaptation,  problem  of,  in  organisms, 
Empedocles,  39;  in  single  struct- 
ures, Democritus,  42;  in  relation  to 
intelligent  design,  Anaxagoras,  42; 
causes  of,  Aristotle,  52-56;  Kant, 
100;  E.  Darwin,  150;  Goethe,  186; 
Chambers,  218  ;  Darwin,  234. 

Analogy  in  structure,  Aristotle,  24, 

Anatomy,  Greek,  34;  revival  of,  86; 
comparative,  Buffon,  132;  Kant, 
loi ;  philosophical.  Herder,  104; 
Schelling,  104 ;  comparative,  Goethe, 
184;  philosophical,  St.  Hilaire,  203; 
relation  to  embryology,  Serres,  213 ; 
philosophical,  Owen,  218. 

Anaxagoras,  Adaptation  and  Design, 
42 ;  germs  of  life,  42. 


Anaximander,  his  natural  philosophy,  33. 

Anaximenes,  his  natural  philosophy,  35. 

Aquinas,  exposition  of  Augustine,  75. 

Arabs,  the  natural  philosophy  of,  75-77. 

Archcesthetism,  influence  of  desires 
and  wants  of  animals ;  upon  struct- 
ure, Aristotle,  49;  E.  Darwin,  147; 
Lamarck,  169;   Darwin  236. 

Aristotle,  relation  to  his  predecessors, 
43 ;  works,  45 ;  principal  contribu- 
tions, 45;  heredity,  46;  errors,  47; 
progressive  development,  48  ;  on 
'movement,'  48;  teleology,  51;  form 
and  matter,  53 ;  on  fortuity,  53 ;  on 
'  design,'  54;  on  survival  of  the  fittest, 
55;  on  primordial  germs,  56;  his 
successors,  58 ;  opposed  by  theolo- 
gians, 78. 

Augustine,  upon  science  and  religion, 
19;  potential  creation,  71;  abiogene- 
sis, 72;  upon  cosmic  Evolution,  73, 
74 ;  upon  organic  Evolution,  73 ;  op- 
posed by  Suarez. 

Avempace,  unity  of  inorganic  and  or- 
ganic forces,  77. 

Avicenna,  Uniformitarianism  in  geology, 
76. 

Bacon,  Francis,  science  and  religion.  20; 
failure  to  appreciate  the  Greeks,  90; 
induction,  91 ;  mutability  of  species, 
91 ;  variation,  92;  experimental  Evolu- 
tion, 93;  artificial  selection,  92; 
gradations  between  species,  93. 

Baer,  embryological  evidence  of  the  mu- 
tability of  species,  212. 

Biogenesis,  Harvey's  dictum,  28;  I-i- 
marck,  178. 

Bonnet,  relation  to  Leibnitz;  'Evolu- 
tion.' 118;  continuity.  119;  perfect- 
ing tendency.  120;  pre-existing  germs, 
120;  scale  of  ascent,  121. 


255 


256 


INDEX. 


Branching  nature  of  ascent,  Lamarck, 
172-176;  St.  Hilaire,  201-202. 

Bruno,  sources  of  his  ideas,  78,  79  ;  sup- 
posed anticipations,  80;  perfecting 
tendency,  80  ;  interpretation  of 
'Genesis,'  80;  Uniformitarianism,  82; 
origin  of  man,  82. 

Buch,  geographical  distribution,  213 ; 
direct  action  environment,  214;  seg- 
regation, 214. 

Buffon,  characteristics,  130-131 ;  change 
of  views,  132;  conception  of  teleol- 
ogy, 132 ;  mutability  of  species,  133  ; 
development  and  degeneration,  133 ; 
unity  of  type,  134;  scale  of  ascent, 
135;  pangenesis,  135;  direct  influence 
of  environment,  136 ;  segregation, 
136 ;  struggle  for  existence,  136 ;  im- 
perfect phyletic  views,  139 ;  anticipa- 
tion of  Darwinism,  141. 

Causation,  relation  of  natural  and  super- 
natural, Aristotle,  50,  51;  problems 
of,  left  by  the  Greeks,  68 ;  natural, 
Augustine,  72;  natural,  philosophers 
upon,  89 ;  Descartes,  94  ;  Spinoza,  97 ; 
Kant,  100;  E.  Darwin,  148;  Lamarck, 
163  ;  Owen,  219 ;  '  finality,'  Naudin, 
224 ;  Darwin,  237-238. 

Chambers,  '  The  Vestiges,'  215  ;  cosmic 
Evolution,  216;  descent  of  man,  216; 
saltatory  Evolution,  217;  perfecting 
tendency,  217  ;  abiogenesis,  218. 

Continuity  of  Germs  (hereditary),  Robi- 
net,  122. 

Creation,  Potential,  Gregory,  71 ;  Augus- 
tine, 71;  Erigena,  74;  Aquinas,  75; 
Bruno,  80;  Descartes,  95.  Special, 
Descartes  upon,  94;  Suarez,  83;  Buf- 
fon, 134;  Lamarck,  159;  succession  of 
creations,  Cuvier,  196 ;  Darwin,  232. 

Cuvier,  early  and  late  views,  195  ;  catastro- 
phism,  196;  special  creations,  196; 
discussion  with  St.  Hilaire,  202-204. 

Darwin,  Charles,  relation  to  the  past,  229 ; 
changes  of  opinion,  229;  induction, 
230,  234 ;  hereditary  and  educational 
influences,  231 ;  evolution  idea,  233 ; 
development  of  his  opinions,  235 ; 
natural  selection,  236;  perfecting 
principle,  237  ;  '  Design,'  238  ;  '  salta- 
tory Evolution,'  238  ;  survival  of  the 
fittest,  239;  Lamarck's  factor,  240; 
Buffon's   factor,   240,   241 ;    heredity, 


242;  final  opinions,  243;  relation  to 
Wallace,  243. 

Darwin,  Erasmus,  principal  writings,  139  ; 
abiogenesis,  140 ;  origin  of  man,  141 ; 
accidental  variation,  favourable,  141 ; 
struggle  for  existence,  142 ;  indebted- 
ness to  the  Greeks,  142 ;  anticipa- 
tion of  Lamarck,  143;  primordial 
germ,  144;  evidences  of  Evolution, 
145  ;  transmission  of  acquired  charac- 
ters, 145  ;  sexual  characters,  147  ;  irri- 
tability, 147,  148 ;  evolution  of  man, 
149;  limitations  of  his  theory,  150; 
relations  to  Lamarck,  152-155. 

Degeneration,  Aristotle,  25;  Sylvius  and 
Vesalius,  25;  Kant,  loi ;  Buff"on,  133, 
134;  disuse,  Owen,  219-220;  caused 
by  disuse,  Darwin,  240-242. 

Democritus,  anticipation  of  materialism. 
41;  attitude  towards  adaptation,  42; 
the  universe  a  mechanism,  42. 

Descartes,  on  special  creation  and  a 
natural  order  of  development,  95. 

Design,  intelligent,  Anaxagoras,  42 ;  Aris- 
totle, 49,  53,  54;  misconception  of, 
Buffon,  132;  Darwin,  238. 

Development,  progressive,  Aristotle,  26 ; 
Buffon,  133  ;  Owen,  220. 

Diderdt,  relation  to  Empedocles,  psychic 
attraction  and  repulsion,  115;  sur- 
vival of  fittest  combinations,  116; 
conception  of  Evolution,  116. 

Diogenes,  spontaneous  origin  of  life,  36. 

Economy  of  growth,  law  of,  Aristotle, 
25,  46;  Goethe,  25;  St.  Hilaire,  25; 
Treviranus,  190. 

Embryology,  advance  of,  27 ;  evidence 
of  Evolution  and  unity  of  type, 
Meckel,  212;  Baer,  212;  Serres,  212; 
Owen,  220. 

Empedocles,  succession  of  life,  37 ;  for- 
tuitous origin,  38 ;  survival  of  the 
fittest,  39 ;  struggle  for  existence,  39  ; 
relation  to  modern  Evolution,  41 ; 
criticised  by  Aristotle,  55;  attraction 
and  repulsion,  37. 

Environment,  Influences  of,  Maillet,  112; 
direct,  Buffon,  136,  137;  Kant,  loi ; 
indirect,  E.  Darwin,  147;  Lamarck, 
172;  direct,  Lamarck.  177-178;  Trevi- 
ranus, 191 ;  action  upon  early  stages 
of  development,  St.  Hilaire,  199; 
action  upon  fixation  of  type,  St.  Vin- 
cent, 205;  Buch,  214;  Haldeman,2i4; 


INDEX. 


257 


Spencer,  215;  Chambers,  217;  Nau- 
din,  224;  Darwin,  240. 

Epicurus,   lack   of  scientific    spirit,  59; 
mechanical  philosophy,  60. 

Evolution,  Ceaseless  changes  in  the 
Universe,  Heraclitus,  37;  natural 
philosophers,  88;  Leibnitz,  88,  95; 
Descartes,  94 ;  Lamarck,  163 ;  Cham- 
bers, 216;  historic  terms,  15;  and 
natural  causation,  21 ;  Emboitement, 
26 ;  in  terms  of  movement,  Aristotle, 
50 ;  '  Saltatory,"  St.  Hilaire,  200.  Still 
in  process,  Empedocles,  38;  Aristotle, 
48;  Diderot,  116.  Evidences  of,  in 
transitions  between  species.  Bacon,  93  ; 
Leibnitz,  96;  Kant,  102;  E.  Darwin, 
145.  [See  also  Vestigial  Structures.] 
Gradual  development,  Empedocles, 
40 ;  Aristotle,  48 ;  Bruno,  80 ;  Des- 
cartes, Leibnitz,  96;  Diderot,  116; 
Goethe,  187.  [See  also  Scale  of 
Ascent.] 

Evolution,  Experimental,  Bacon,  92,  93. 

Fixation  of  type,  St.  Vincent,  206 ;  Nau- 

din,  224. 
Form  and  matter,  relations  of,  Aristotle, 

49,    53;     Bruno,    80;    Goethe,   186; 

Treviranus,  194. 
Fortuity   vs.   Design,    Democritus,    42; 

opinions   of  Aristotle,   53 ;    Diderdt, 

117;  Darwin,  238. 
Fossils,  as  evidence  of  past  history  of  the 

globe,    Xenophanes,    36;      Leibnitz, 

96;  Maillet,  112. 

Geographical  distribution,  BuflFon.  136; 
Buch,  214;  Darwin,  240;  Humboldt, 
232;  De  CandoUe,  235. 

Germs,  pre-existent,  doctrine  of,  Anax- 
agoras,42;  Maillet,  112;  Bonnet,  120; 
Dider6t,  1 19-120;  Robinet,  122. ' 

Germs  or  cells,  primordial,  the  original 
simple  forms  of  life,  Aristotle,  56; 
Buffon,  135;  Kant,  loi ;  E.  Darwin, 
144;  Lamarck,  178:  primordial 
spheres,  Oken,  126;  primordial  types, 
Treviranus,  194. 

Goethe,  mental  characteristics,  181 ;  in- 
fluence of  Buffon  and  the  Greeks,  182 ; 
philosophical  anatomy,  183;  com- 
parative anatomy,  184;  unity  of  type, 
184;  vestiges,  185;  method,  185; 
adaptation  problem,  186 ;  matter  and 


form,  186;  theory  of  transformation, 
187. 

Greeks,  the  natural  philosophy  of,  29; 
influence  of  their  surroundings,  29; 
spirit  of,  30;  phases  of  their  natural 
philosophy,  31,  32;  their  legacy  to 
later  thought,  64-68  ;  influence  upon 
the  P'athers,  69-71 ;  cosmic  Evolution, 
89  ;  influence  upon  speculative 
group.  108. 

Gregory  of  Nyssa,  potential  creation,  71. 

Heraclitus,  contribution  to  the  Evolution 
idea,  37. 

Herbert,  production  of  new  species  by 
intercrossing,  213. 

Herder,  influence  of  Kant,  103 ;  pro- 
gressive development,  103 ;  unity  of 
type,  103. 

Heredity  ('pangenesis,'  '  perigcncsis'), 
theories  of  Aristotle,  46 ;  Maupertuis, 
114;  Buffon,  135;  Lamarck,  171; 
Darwin,  242. 

Homology  in  structure,  Vicq  d'Azyr.  24. 

Inductive  method,  Aristotle,  16,  47 ; 
Bruno,  17,  79;  Bacon.  17,  91;  and 
deductive,  Scheliing,  105;  Goethe, 
185;  Treviranus,  189;  induction  and 
deduction,  Cuvier  and  St.  Hilaire. 
202-204 ;  Darwin,  230-234. 

Internal  perfecting  tendency.  Aristotle, 
50;  Bruno,  80;  Leibnitz.  20;  Herder, 
103;  Bonnet,  120;  Chambers.  217; 
Owen,  219;  opposed  by  Darvsin.  237. 

Kant,  indebtedness  to  Buffon,  98;  tele- 
ology, 99;  Evolution,  99;  natural 
causation,  100;  man,  loi ;  survival  of 
the  fittest,  loi;  unity  of  type,  102; 
scale  of  ascent,  102. 

Lamarck,  relations  to  E.  Dar\vin,  152- 
155  ;  life  and  characteristics,  156-158  ; 
change  of  views,  159-161 ;  conception 
of  nature,  163;  of  Evolution.  163; 
uniformity.  165;  his  factors.  165-167; 
illustrations.  168-171 ;  irritability.  169; 
heredity,  171;  species.  170-172;  phy- 
logeny,  172-176;  action  of  environ- 
ment,' 177.  178:  abiogcncsis.  178: 
primordial  cells,  178;  defects  and 
failure  of  his  system.  179-181. 

Lange.  opinions  upon  Democritus*  and 
Empedocles'  doctrines  andUesign.  40. 


258 


INDEX. 


Leibnitz,  continuity  and  perfectibility,  20 ; 

scale    of  beings,   95;    mutability   of 

species,  96;  man   and  the  primates, 
96. 

Lessing,  law  of  development,  103. 

Linnaeus,  characteristics,  128;  fixity  of 
species,  129;  new  hybrids,  130;  com- 
parison with  Buffon,  130;  his  method 
of  thought,  202. 

Lucretius,  relations  to  Empedocles  and 
Epicurus,  60-62 ;  survival  of  the  fit- 
test, 62 ;  abiogenesis,  63, 

Lyell,  exposition  of  Lamarckism,  233; 
his  views,  227. 


Man,  Cr/^/«(7/;Anaximander,  34;  Oken, 
127.    Slow  development  of,  Anaximan- 
der,  34;    in   the    faculties    and   arts, 
Lucretius,  64;    in   mental  evolution. 
Bruno,  80;  relation  to  apes,  Leibnitz, 
96;     E.    Darwin,    147,      Relation    to 
other   primates,   tool-bearing   hands, 
Bruno,  82 ;  Leibnitz,  96 ;  Kant,  loi ; 
unity  of  type.  Herder,  104 ;  Robinet, 
121 ;  Buffon,  134;  Buffon  and  Helve- 
tius,  140-141 ;  tool-bearing  hands,  E. 
Darwin,  141 ;  Chambers,  216.     Sum- 
mit of  Evolution,  Aristotle,  49,  51,  52 ; 
Robinet,  123 ;  E.  Darwin,  141. 
Maillet,    sudden    transformations,    no; 
suddenly    acquired    characters,   no; 
uniformity,  112;    marine  and   terres- 
trial forms,  112. 

Matthew,  principle  of  natural  selection, 
223. 

Matter,  see  Form. 

Maupertuis,  psychic  properties  of  matter, 
113;  heredity,  114;  fortuitous  varia- 
tion, 115. 

Meckel,  embryological  evidence  of  Evo- 
lution, 212. 

Metamorphosis,  sudden  transformation, 
Duret,  108;  Bonnami,  109;  Kircher, 
109;  Maillet,  no. 

Mutability  of  species,  natural  philoso- 
phers upon,  88  ;  Bacon,  91 ;  Leibnitz, 
96;  Buffon,  132;  Lamarck,  163;  St. 
Vincent,  205  ;  embryological  evi- 
dence, Baer,  212. 


Oken,  relation  to  the  Greeks,  124;  Ur- 
Schleim,  125;  abiogenesis,  126;  cel- 
lular theory,  126 ;  origin  of  man,  127. 

Origin  of  species  (see  Mutability  and 
Evolution)  by  intercrossing,  Bruno, 
84;  Linnaeus,  130;  Herbert,  213. 

Owen,  archetypal  idea,  218;  continuous 
creation,  219;  degeneration,  219 ;  evi- 
dences of  Evolution,  220. 

Parmenides,  36. 

Pascal,  influence  of  the  Greeks,  17; 
upon  Evolution,  97. 

Pliny,  natural  history  of,  58. 

Psychic  properties  of  matter,  attraction 
and  repulsion,  Empedocles,  37  ;  Mau- 
pertuis, 113;  Dider6t,  115. 

Robinet,  scale,  121 ;  man  and  apes,  121 ; 
uniformity,  122  ;pre-existent  germs, 32. 


Naudin,  unity  of  type,  223 ;  phylogeny, 
224;  environment,  224;  finality,  224; 
fixation  of  type,  524 ;  artificial  selec- 
tion, 225. 


Saltatory  Evolution,  St.  Hilaire,  200-201 ; 
Chambers,  217;  Darwin,  238;   Hux- 
ley, 238. 
Scale  of  Ascent,  from  the  polyps  to  rnan, 
Aristotle,  48 ;  Bruno,  81 ;  continuity, 
Leibnitz,    96;    Kant,    102;    Lessing, 
103;    Herder,    103;    continuity.  Bon- 
net, 121;  Robinet,  102;  Buffon,  135 ; 
Lamarck,  172. 
Schelling,    deductive    character    of   his 
philosophy,      105;      philosophy      of 
nature,     104;      influence    upon     St. 
Hilaire.  197. 
Segregation,  similar  in  its  results  to  arti- 
ficial  selection,    Buffon,   136;    Buch, 
214;  Darwin,  241. 
Selection,  Artificial,  relation  to  Evolution, 
Bacon,  92;  Buffon,  136;  segregation, 
Buffon,  112;    survival   of  the   fittest, 
Wells,   222;    Naudin,   225;    Darwin, 
235;  Natural  Selection,  see  Survival 
of  the  Fittest. 
Serres,  embryological  evidence  of  Evolu- 
tion, 212,  213. 
Spencer,  early  publications,  215. 
St.  Vincent,  life,  204 ;  abiogenesis,  205 ; 
fixity   of    type,    205 ;    hereditary   sta- 
bility, 206. 
St.  Hilaire,  Geoffroy,  characteristics,  197  ; 
sources  of  his  opinions  and  method, 
197 ;    his  special  theories,  198  ;    envi- 
ronment,   199;    anticipation   of  Dar- 
winism,   199;     'saltatory  Evolution,' 
200;    phylogeny  and  limited  view  of 


INDEX. 


259 


Evolution,  201,  202;    discussion  with 
Cuvier,  202-204  "•  unity  of  type,  203. 

St.  Hilaire,  Isidore,  theory  of  limited 
variability,  207  ;  stability  of  types,  207 ; 
influence  of  environment,  208. 

Struggle  for  existence,  Anaximander,  35; 
in  feeding  and  propagation,  Em- 
pedocles,  39;  Buffon,  136;  Malthus, 
136;  E.  Darwin,  142;  Treviranus, 
191 ;  De  Candolle,  W.  Herbert,  Lyell, 
239;  Darwin,  239,  244;  Wallace,  244. 

Suarez,  special  creation,  83;  post-crea- 
tion species,  84;  opposes  Augustine, 
84;  literalism,  85. 

Survival  of  the  Fittest,  forms  or  varieties 
of  life,  Empedocles,  39 ;  supported 
by  Epicurus,  60;  by  Lucretius,  61; 
Hume,  97  ;  Buffon,  136  ;  Kant,  loi ; 
St.  Hilaire,  199;  Wells,  222;  Mat- 
thew, 223 ;  Naudin,  225 ;  Darw  in, 
236 ;  Wallace,  245.  Single  advan- 
tageous variations  and  organs  stated 
and  opposed  by  Aristotle,  55 ;  Dide- 
r6t,  by  fortuitous  combinations  of 
particles,  116;  by  combinations  of 
organs,  117;  survival  of  opposable 
thumb,  Buffon,  141;  E.  Darwin,  141; 
St.  Hilaire,  199 ;  Darwin,  239,  244. 

Teleology  of  Aristotle,  51 ;  opposed  by 

Democritus,    42;    by    Epicurus,   60; 

by  Lucretius,  61 ;  Kant,  99 ;  Buffon, 

132;  Darwin,  238. 
Thales,  suggestion  of  marine   origin  of 

life,  33. 
Treviranus,  his '  biology,'  188  ;  his  method, 

189;    compensation   of  growth,    190; 

environment,  191 ;  struggle  for  exist- 


ence, 191;  factors  of  Evolution,  192; 
abiogenesis,  193 ;  primordial  polyps, 
194;  matter  and  form,  194-195. 
Type,  unity  of,  Aristotle,  45  ;  Bruno,  80; 
Leibnitz,  96;  Newton,  97;  Kant.  102; 
Herder,  103;  Buffon,  134  ;  E.  Darwin, 
145;  Goethe,  184;  St.  Hilaire,  198, 
203;  Archetype,  Owen,  219;  Naudin, 
223. 

Uniformitarianism,  similarity  of  past 
and  present  changes.  Avicenna,  76; 
Bruno,  82;  Maillet,  112;  Buffon,  137; 
Lamarck,  165  ;   Darwin,  232. 

Variation  and  Evolution,  Bacon,  88.92; 
Leibnitz,  99 ;  fortuitous,  from  sexual 
union,  Maupertuis,  115;  St.  Hilaire, 
199;  Brown,  23s;  Darwin,  244:  Wal- 
lace, 2^4. 

Variation,  fortuitous,  by  fortuitous  com- 
binations, Empedocles,  38 ;  Dider6t, 
117;  St.  Hilaire,  199;  Wells,  222; 
Darwin's  opinion,  237. 

Variability,  theory  of  limited.  Is.  St. 
Hilaire,  206-208. 

Vestigial  structures,  meaning  of,  Aris- 
totle, 45;  Buffon,  132;  Goethe,  185. 

Wallace,  on  the  evidence  of  Evolution, 
226;  statement  of  his  theory,  244; 
distinction  of,  245. 

Wells,  theory  of  natural  selection,  222. 

Xenophanes,  36. 

Zeller,  division  of  the  Greek  periods,  32 ; 
upon  origin  of  idea  of  Design,  40,  42. 


Columbia  University  Biological  Series. 

EDITED  BY 
HENRY    FAIRFIELD    OSBORN, 

Ba  Costa  Professor  of  Zoology  in  Columbia  Uniteraity, 

AND 

EDMUND    B.    WILSON, 

Prof essor  of  Zoology  in  Columbia  UnicersUy. 


This  series  is  founded  upon  a  course  of  popular  University 
lectures  given  during  the  winter  of  1892-;),  in  connection  witli 
the  opening  of  the  new  department  of  Biology  in  Cohimljiu 
College.  The  lectures  are  in  a  measure  consecutive  in  ciiarac- 
ter,  illustrating  phases  in  the  discovery  and  application  of  the 
theory  of  Evolution.  Thus  the  first  course  outlined  the  de- 
velopment of  the  Descent  theory;  the  second,  the  a])plicati()n 
of  this  theory  to  the  problem  of  the  ancestry  of  the  Vertebrates, 
largely  based  upon  embryological  data;  the  third,  the  applica- 
tion of  the  Descent  theory  to  the  interpretation  of  the  struftnre 
and  phylogeny  of  the  Fishes  or  lowest  V^ertebrates,  chiefly  based 
upon  comparative  anatomy  ;  the  fourth,  upon  the  problems  of 
individual  development  and  Inheritance,  chiefly  based  upon  the 
structure  and  functions  of  the  cell. 

Since  their  orio-inal  delivery  the  lectures  have  been  carefullv 
rewritten  and  illustrated  so  as  to  adapt  them  to  the  use  of  Col- 
lege and  University  students  and  of  general  readers.  The  vol- 
umes as  at  present  arranged  for  include: 

I.  From  the  Greeks  to  Darwin.    By  Henry  Faiufield 

OSBORN. 

II.  Aiiiphioxus  and  the  Ancestry  of  tlie  Vertebrates. 
By  Arthur  Willet. 
III.  Fishes,  Living  and  Fossil.    By  Bashk.ko  Dkan. 
IV.  The    Cell    in    Development    and    Inheritance.       ly 

Edmuxd  B.  Wilson. 
Y.  The   Foundations  of  Zoology.     By  William   Kmih 
Brooks,  ^^___ 

THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY. 

66   FIFTH   AVENUE,  NEW   YORK. 


I.    FROM  THE   GREEKS  TO   DARWIN. 

THE   DEVELOPMENT    OF    THE  EVOLUTION   IDEA. 

BY 

HENRY   FAIRFIELD    OSBORN,   Sc.D.,  Princeton, 

Da  Costa  Professor  of  Zoology  in  Columbia  University. 
8vo.    Cloth.    $2.00,  net. 


This  opening  volume, "  From  the  Greeks  to  Darwin,"  is  an 
outline  of  the  development  from  the  earliest  times  of  the  idea  of 
the  origin  of  life  by  evolution.  It  brings  together  in  a  continu- 
ous treatment  the  progress  of  this  idea  from  the  Greek  philoso- 
pher Thales  (640  B.C.)  to  Darwin  and  Wallace.  It  is  based 
partly  upon  critical  studies  of  the  original  authorities,  partly 
ujion  the  studies  of  Zeller,  Perrier,  Quatrefages,  Martin,  aud 
other  writers  less  known  to  English  readers. 

This  history  differs  from  the  outlines  which  have  been  pre- 
viously published,  in  attempting  to  establish  a  complete  conti- 
nuity of  thought  in  the  growth  of  the  various  elements  in  the 
Evolution  idea,  and  especially  in  the  more  critical  and  exact 
study  of  the  pre-Darwinian  writers,  such  as  Buffon,  Goethe, 
Erasmus  Darwin,  Treviranus,  Lamarck,  and  St.  Hilaire,  about 
whose  actual  share  in  the  establishment  of  the  Evolution  theory 
vague  ideas  are  still  current. 

TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 
I.  The  Axttcipatiox  axd  Interpret atio:n"  of  I^ature. 
II.  Among  the  Greeks. 

III.  The  Theologians  and  Natural  Philosophers. 

IV.  The  Evolutionists  of  the  Eighteenth  Century. 
y.  From  Lamarck  to  St.  Hilaire. 

VI.  The  First  Half-century  and  Darwin. 

In  the  opening  chapter  the  elements  and  environment  of  the 
Evolution  idea  are  discussed,  and  in  the  second  chapter  the  re- 
markable parallelism  between  the  growth  of  this  idea  in  Greece 
and  in  modern  times  is  pointed  out.  In  the  succeeding  chap- 
ters the  various  periods  of  European  thought  on  the  subject  are 
covered,  concluding  with  the  first  half  of  the  present  century, 
especially  with  the  development  of  the  Evolution  idea  in  the 
mind  of  Darwin. 


IV.    THE    CELL   IN    DEVELOPMENT    AND 

INHERITANCE. 


BY 


EDMUND   B.   WILSON,    Ph.D.,  J.H.U., 

Professor  of  Invertebrate  Zuuloyy,  Culunibia  Culleye. 


This  volume  contains  a  presentation  in  a  simple  form  of  tlie 
present  state  of  our  knowledge  regarding  cell-orgunizatiou  and 
its  bearings  upon  the  phenomena  of  develoj)meiit. 

The  point  of  view  and  mode  of  treatment  dilTers  widely  from 
that  taken  in  Hertwig's  recent  work  on  tlie  Cell,  'i'lic  cl-II  i.s 
treated  primarily  as  the  basis  or  substratum  of  inheritance. 
Attention  is  therefore  directed  at  the  outset  especially  to  the 
germ-cells — to  their  structure  and  maturation,  their  union  in 
fertilization,  to  the  phenomena  of  cell-division,  and  to  the  earlier 
stages  of  embryological  development  as  illustrating  the  ])roblems 
of  cell-dynamics. 

These  chapters  are  used  as  an  introduction  to  a  more  general 
account  of  the  cell,  considered  both  as  an  indei)endent  organi.<m 
and  as  a  unit  of  more  complex  structure  and  action.  The  organ- 
ization of  the  cell  is  fully  described,  the  functions  of  its  various 
parts  critically  discussed,  and  a  review  given  of  modern  theories 
of  protoplasmic  structure  and  action.  The  latter  part  of  the 
work  is  devoted  mainly  to  recent  discoveries  in  experimental 
embryology  in  their  bearing  on  the  current  tlieories  of  Wei.^- 
mann,  Hertwig,  and  others,  regarding  the  essential  nature  of 
development,  differentiation,  and  regeneration.  The  V(jlume 
will  be  fully  illustrated. 

Just  Puhlished, 

BIOLOGICAL  LECTURES  AND  ADDRESSES 

DELIVERED    BY   THE   LATE 

ARTHUR  MILNES  MARSHALL,  M.A.,  M.D.,  D.Sc,  F.R.S., 

Professor  vf  Zooloqy  in  Oirens  Collfc/e  ;  Late  Fellow  of 
8t.  John's  Colleije,  Cambridge. 

EDITED    BY 

C.    F.    MARSHALL,    M.D.,   B.Sc,   F.R.C.S. 

Cloth,   12mo,  pp.  363.     $2.00. 


THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY, 

66  FIFTH  AVENUE.  NEW  YORK. 


WORKS  ON  BIOLOGY 

PUBLISHED   BY 

THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY, 


A  Course  of  Elementary  Instruction  in  Prac= 

tical  Biology.  By  T.  H.  Huxley  and  H.  N.  Maetix. 
Kevised  by  G.  B.  Howes  and  D,  H.  Scott.  .  Cloth,  12mo. 
$3.  GO. 

"The  value  of  its  nietliod  has  been  fully  tested,  and  tlie  manv  works 
■wliicli  have  appeared  since  and  have  applied  the  plan  in  various  depart- 
ments show  how  perfectly  it  meets  the  needs  of  the  day.  ...  It  marked 
the  beginning  of  a  new  era  in  studies  upon  living  organisms — an  era  where 
the  study  of  isolated  parts  was  largely  discontinued  and  the  organism  began 
to  be  studied  in  its  entirety.  In  this  regard  it  seems  to  us  that  the  Practical 
Biology  is  far  superior  to  most  of  the  later  works  which  have  been  designed 
to  partially  or  wholly  supplant  it." — Jlicroseopical  Journal. 

"  Huxley  and  Martin's  '  Practical  Biology  '  has  long  since  won  an  envia- 
ble place  as  a  text-book  in  our  best  institutions." — Science. 


Lessons  in  Elementary  Biology.    By  T.  Jeffery 

Parker,  F.R.S.,  Professor  of  Biology  in  the  University  of 
Otago,  Dunedin,  New  Zealand.     Cloth,  12mo.     $2.60. 

"The  author  has  made  a  well-rounded  treatise  on  the  subject  neither  too 
meagre  nor  too  technical,  a  careful  reading  of  which  will  give  one  a  good 
foundation  for  the  further  study  of  this  most  interesting  science." — School 
Journal. 

Text=book    of    Elementary    Biology.    By  H.  J, 

Campbell,  M.D.     Cloth,  12mo.     $1.60. 

"A  well  analyzed,  clearly  phrased,  skilfully  illustrated  (136  illustra- 
tions), scientifically  prepared,  pedagogically  arranged  text-book  on  a  subject 
not  overburdened  with  good  material  for  teaching." — Journal  of  Education. 


THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY, 

66  FIFTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YORK. 


II.    AMPHIOXUS  AND  THE  ANCESTRY 
OF  THE  VERTEBRATES. 


BY 


ARTHUR   WILLEY,    B.Sc.    Lond., 

Tutor  in  Biology,   Columbia  Unirernity ;  Tiitlfnur  Student  of  the 
University  of  Cambridge. 

8vo.    Cloth.    $2.50,  net. 


The  purpose  of  this  vohime  is  to  consider  the  proldom  of  tlio 
ancestry  of  the  Vertebrates  from  the  stan(l})oint  of  the  anat- 
omy and  development  of  Amphioxns  and  other  members  of  the 
group  Protochordata.  The  work  opens  with  an  Introduction, 
in  which  is  given  a  brief  historical  sketch  of  the  speculations 
of  the  celebrated  anatomists  and  embryologists,  from  Kticnne 
Geoffroy  St.  Hilaire  down  to  our  own  day,  upon  tliis  ])n)ljK'm. 
The  remainder  of  the  first  and  the  whole  of  tlie  second  cliajticr 
is  devoted  to  a  detailed  account  of  tlie  anatomy  of  Am})hi(>xus 
as  compared  with  that  of  higher  Vertebrates.  The  tliird  chajiUT 
deals  with  the  embryonic  and  larval  development  of  Am]»hi<»\iis, 
while  the  fourth  deals  more  brietiv  with  the  anatom  v,  embrvoloirv, 
and  relationships  of  the  Ascidians;  then  the  other  allied  forms, 
Balanoglossus,  Cephalodiscus,  are  described. 

The  work  concludes  with  a  series  of  discussions  toncli- 
ing  the  problem  proposed  in  the  Introduction,  in  which  it  is 
attempted  to  define  certain  general  principles  of  Evolution  by 
which  the  descent  of  the  Vertebrates  from  Invertebrate  ancestors 
may  be  supposed  to  have  taken  place. 

The  work  contains  an  extensive  bibliography,  full  notes,  and 
135  illustrations. 

TABLE   OF    CONTENTS. 

Introduction". 

Chapter    I.  Anatomy  of  Amphioxus. 
II.  Ditto. 

III.  Development  of  Ampiiioxus. 

IV.  The  Ascidians. 

V.  The  Protochordata  in  their  Relation  to 
THE  Problem  of  Vertehrate  Desc-ent. 


in.    FISHES,   LIVING   AND   FOSSIL. 

AN  INTRODUCTOBY  STUDY. 

BY 

BASHFORD  DEAN,  Ph.D.,  Columbia, 

Insti'uctor  iiv  Biology,   Columbia  University. 
8vo.    Cloth.    $2.50,  net. 


This  work  has  been  prepared  to  meet  the  needs  of  the  gen- 
eral student  for  a  concise  knowledge  of  the  Fishes.  It  contains 
a  review  of  the  four  larger  groups  of  the  strictly  fishlike  forms. 
Sharks,  Chimaeroids,  Teleostomes,  and  the  Dipnoans,  and  adds 
to  this  a  chapter  on  the  Lampreys.  It  presents  in  figures  the 
prominent  members,  living  and  fossil,  of  each  group;  illustrates 
characteristic  structures;  adds  notes  upon  the  important  phases 
of  development,  and  formulates  the  views  of  investigators  as  to 
relationships  and  descent. 

The  recent  contributions  to  the  knowledge  of  extinct  Fishes 
are  taken  into  special  account  in  the  treatment  of  the  entire 
subject,  and  restorations  have  been  attempted,  as  of  Dinichthys, 
Ctenodus,  and  Cladoselache. 

The  writer  has  also  indicated  diagrammatically,  as  far  as 
generally  accepted,  the  genetic  relationships  of  fossil  and  living 
forms. 

The  aim  of  the  book  has  been  mainly  to  furnish  the  student 
with  a  w^ell-marked  ground-plan  of  Ichthyology,  to  enable  him  to 
better  understand  special  works,  such  as  those  of  Smith  Wood- 
ward and  Giinther.  The  work  is  fully  illustrated,  mainly  from 
the  writers  original  pen-drawings. 

TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER 

I.  Fishes.  Their  Essential  Characters.  Sharks,  Chimaeroids,  Teleo- 
stomes, aud  Luug-tishes.  Their  Appearance  in  Time  and  their 
Distribution, 

II.  The  Lampreys.  Their  Position  with  Reference  to  Fishes.  Bdel- 
lostoma,  Myxiue,  Petromyzon,  Palaeospoudylus. 

IIL  The  Shark  Group.  Anatomical  Characters.  Its  Extinct  Members, 
Acaiithodiau,  Cladoselachid,  Xenacanthid,  Cestracionts. 

IV.  Chimaeroids.  Structures  of  Callorhyuchus  and  Chimaera.  Squalo- 
raja  and  Myriacanthus.     Life-habits  and  Probable  Relationships. 

V.  Teleostomes,  The  Forms  of  Recent  *'  Ganoids."  Habits  and  Dis- 
tribution. The  Relations  of  Prominent  Extinct  Forms.  Crosso- 
pterygians.     Typical  "  Bony  Fishes. " 

VI.  The  Evolution  of  the  Groups  of  Fishes.  Aquatic  Metamerism. 
Numerical  Lines.  Evolution  of  Gill-cleft  Characters,  Paired  and 
Unpaired  Fins,  Aquatic  Sense-organs. 

VIl!  The  Development  op  Fishes,  Prominent  Features  in  Embr3^onic 
and  Larval  Development  of  Members  of  each  Group.     Summaries. 


"1 


JAN 


73 


N   MANCHESTER. 
INDIANA 


i 

'^xxnmS 

HulJjyk 

1 V  UgviA/wvvvAAJiiA' K 

m 

flT 

r  EBEHXa^SBS.)  ■ 

tuuwglfOHUi 

^^^ 

^oSmSdoE 

^DQDm^ 

^ 

^^^^ 

IScS^^ 

» »_•  »  «  »  ♦■ 

■T  1    «  • 

WW 

"mm^ 

^^^^^^^?:tK 

1  ♦  -v  1 1,  '1 

''!(   ^    lit   V 

»  WX 

SsK 

S  ?' 

i 

M^^ 

•?kv>:^^:'i':<':<^:' 

1.  V  •  11  1  ^  *"  * 
1  «  i.  «  i>  «  r  t 

w 

ii 

mm^ 

t,«   t   It   » 

«  f  «  »  1«  1 

•  1' *  k 

".V.' 

iPlrt^Hn 

l«-»  » 

C^ 

1'^ 

t  «;«  *  **  h\W.»i 

l\T»,»  ««(•<< 

SSx 

M  JUP  JHM  JUf  n  JS  Jl  1 

;a^5^ 

jni  aina 

1 

mnSflolffini 

GCC 

<»& 

■ 

1 

1 1  icy  I 

kni 

W1iWvt»l*%* 

2flAffiaHK9fi 

^V*»%",SViV 

^flnplRnril^rir 

•  ■HI  #  »  t  "*.*  V 

v^^c*^'^??^^?:*;*^ 

1 

)&I^1v@Q6^oI 

»  «.  id  n  »  »«  t-f,  » 

'S•^'^;^v'^'^v^s*^! 

\^^nJ^luiJj 

^^^^ 

ra^lfii 

»V.  !.!«.». !.«.»  I  »  :  I  iM<»r-t-»i»!t'l 

\7CaaJw  Jv-H  •wl 

" J\iri/>K/Wi  ^^tT)A 

To^rcxn 

JtlCTTJJ 

m7.-'Tj  1 

